politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : 2 Con, SNP, Lab and 1 Green Def

First!

Re the £1.7b argument, the thread the following day was even worse..

Remember, the £1.7b was paid in full

chestnut • Posts: 2,068
November 2014

Speedy said:
Cameron will pay the full amount

chestnut said
All £850m.

As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks


Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
November 2014

He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.


Charles • Posts: 9,777
November 2014

Speedy said:

Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.

Charles said

Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.

I think they are paying £850m too much.

But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.


http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p1

I cast my vote in the Southborough North by-election an hour ago. Although presently held by the Tories, it has been held by the LDs in the past and the LD candidate is a former councillor for the ward. It is the type of seat the LDs should hope to be competitive in if Farron is to lead any sort of revival (especially with Labour not contesting it). UKIP also have a strong presence locally. On balance I would expect a Tory hold, especially given the Tory poll lead, and a return to the Council for Joe Simmons who lost his ward in Southborough and High Brooms to Labour a few years back

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

"campaigner for feminism, not equality"

Would help if she understood what words mean.

And someone needs to explains what circumcision is to her.

Scotland’s leading universities have accused Nicola Sturgeon’s government of threatening their academic and financial freedom after ministers proposed new powers to control the membership of their ruling councils.

In a fresh row about state centralisation in Scotland, Glasgow, St Andrews, Strathclyde and Edinburgh universities have unanimously warned the measures could lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of outside funding and a collapse in university research. They describe the measures as “catastrophic”, “arbitrary” and “damaging”.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/scottish-universities-sturgeon-glasgow-st-andrews-edinburgh-strathclyde

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

Despicable. If a man said something similar about women, he would be finished.

Anyway, now that we know her ludicrous email "shaming" was simply part of an effort to build her media profile, the least we can do is ignore her and anything to do with this "story" forthwith.

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

I bet she's wicked in bed

On Topic, the Thurrock seat is Labours strongest in the area. They won it easily last year despite UKIP having just won Clacton and looking good in Rochester.

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

Funnily enough I saw some anti feminist graffiti on my way to work this morning. I walk from Waterloo to Holborn and I walk down past the Imax. On the walls of the underpasses someone has scribed something like "feminists want to ban research into prostate cancer" and "feminists want to legalize domestic violence against men".

Now, I doubt that any of that is true, but I think it's a sign of the times that someone has done graffiti like that. It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago but such is force with which the feminist cause is propagated it's hardly a surprise that someone's had enough.

Ooh, Green defence, interesting.

Can the UKIP fight maintain itself in Thurrock?

FPT

AnneJGP said:

flightpath01 said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato said:

Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

TudorRose said:

Casino_Royale said:

This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

Now that's what I call satire...!

That was my guess too.

We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'

Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!

He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

Oh, spoiler alert.

Ooh!

Scott_P • Posts: 11,002
November 2014

Socrates said:
It's still a £1.7 billion payment.

Scott P said
Except it's not.

Apart from that, spot on

http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p3

kle4 said:

FPT

AnneJGP said:

flightpath01 said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato said:

Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

TudorRose said:

Casino_Royale said:

This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

Now that's what I call satire...!

That was my guess too.

We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'

Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!

He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

Oh, spoiler alert.

Many thanks for this. Very grateful.

AndyJS said:

Jonathan said:

"The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

A more accurate version is...

"After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.

It was both. A triumph to win circa 4 million votes and become the third largest party in terms of popular support. And a bitter disappointment that those 4 million votes translated into one MP.

kle4 said:

FPT

AnneJGP said:

flightpath01 said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato said:

Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

TudorRose said:

Casino_Royale said:

This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

Now that's what I call satire...!

That was my guess too.

We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'

Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!

He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

Oh, spoiler alert.

Party Games is a brilliant episode.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

kle4 said:

FPT

AnneJGP said:

flightpath01 said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Plato said:

Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

TudorRose said:

Casino_Royale said:

This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

Now that's what I call satire...!

That was my guess too.

We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'

Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!

He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

Oh, spoiler alert.

Party Games is a brilliant episode.

IDK, it loses something the 20th time you watch it.

Oh wait, no it doesn't

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

Yes (Prime) Minister is certainly better in my opinion, but I did like The Thick of It - certainly the first series and the specials. The problem, however, was that once it became mainstream, The Thick of It had to be toned down and I think it tried too hard to appeal to real life politicians.

tlg86 said:

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

Yes (Prime) Minister is certainly better in my opinion, but I did like The Thick of It - certainly the first series and the specials. The problem, however, was that once it became mainstream, The Thick of It had to be toned down and I think it tried too hard to appeal to real life politicians.

Oh I quite liked it - good swearing is always to be appreciated, and I think the penultimate episode, which is entirely a government hearing, is brilliant even with no prior watching of the series - I think it just loses something when I literally don't like or care about anybody and, more crucially, none of them are really that interesting except for Tucker.

isam said:

Re the £1.7b argument, the thread the following day was even worse..

Remember, the £1.7b was paid in full

chestnut • Posts: 2,068
November 2014

Speedy said:
Cameron will pay the full amount

chestnut said
All £850m.

As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks


Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
November 2014

He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.


Charles • Posts: 9,777
November 2014

Speedy said:

Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.

Charles said

Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.

I think they are paying £850m too much.

But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.


http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p1

I notice that you don't point out that I and others were clear that Osborne had avoided any question of interest on what had been an historical underpayment and gained a substantial cash flow advantage in deferring the payments but had otherwise to accept that the payment was due under the rules of the club we are currently members of.

Hey ho.

isam said:

Ooh!

Scott_P • Posts: 11,002
November 2014

Socrates said:
It's still a £1.7 billion payment.

Scott P said
Except it's not.

Apart from that, spot on

http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p3

You seem to have corralled almost all of the 'Tory' PB Tories. They're remarkably unwilling to come to the branding iron.

"Isil fighter hiding in Calais migrant camp with 'aim of committing terror attacks in Britain', say local reports

French police under orders to find and arrest Isil fighter on an Islamist watchlist who returned from Syria in August and is hiding among migrants in Calais, La Voix du Nord reports"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11856278/Isil-fighter-hiding-in-Calais-migrant-camp-with-aim-of-committing-terror-attacks-in-Britain-say-local-reports.html

This from the ABC news site.

9:55 p.m.

As tens of thousands of Syrians are desperately fleeing their homeland, at least five Syrian families are eager to leave a country that gave them shelter.

Uruguay's president says his administration will try to help the families reach another country.

Uruguay welcomed the 42 refugees fleeing Syria's civil war in October 2014. But they protested this week outside the presidency, demanding authorities help them leave for other countries, saying Uruguay is too expensive.

President Tabare Vazquez said Thursday that Uruguay has reached out to Lebanon because that's where the refugees would like to go. Since Lebanon is not willing to welcome them, his government is asking the five families to choose another country.

The refugees lack passports from their home country, and cannot get Uruguayan ones because they are not citizens. Uruguay has provided them with local IDs and travel documents, but not all countries recognize them

MTimT said:

Jonathan said:

"The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

A more accurate version is...

"After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

Personally, I think something in between is the real story.

"UKIP advance on previous best performance in a Westminster election but fail to capitalize in terms of seats."

Good grief, somebody being reasonable on a political discussion forum.

It'll never catch on, you know.

Had an SNP get out the vote person come round today - never had that before in a council election. Different person from the people who canvassed me in the General election too.

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

Genuinely superior telly all round. I thought the satire in Yes (Prime) Minister probed deeper than almost anything else I've seen televised. It wasn't as dark but it was very telling.

(Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Really? It's one thing to change you mind about say the level of NHS spending, but I would have thought quite another to swallow the claptrap Corbyn seems to believe.

With Hungary and Macedonia closing their borders, reports tonight that France will only take Christians, French police looking for an Isil member in the Calais camp, Ban Ki Moon singling out the UK when his organisation is a disaster of mega proportions, Obama rides to the rescue saying they will take 10,000 Syrian refugees from 2016. This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

(Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)

I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.

Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

glw said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

There's no need to tune in the laughter from CCHQ will be audible nationwide.

It will act as a nice aperitif to the Tour of Britain stage which starts shortly afterwards.
Hopefully Sky will cover it as don't want to have to listen to Nick Robinson talking over the top of everyone like 5 years ago.

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

I am not suggesting war but that this has the possibility of causing a complete rupture throughout the EU with chaos throughout

flightpath01 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes

Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.

Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll

HYUFD said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences

Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

It would be surprising if Sky News and BBC News channel don't cover it, although you can never underestimate their ability to cut away to something else just at the vital moment.

I hope Nick Robinson isn't commentating on it again. Last time he told everyone David Miliband had won right up to the last moment when the figures were announced.

HYUFD said:

flightpath01 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes

Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.

Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll

BBC news

Burnham says " I have an outside chance"

Tykejohnno said:

This from the ABC news site.

Anyone But Corbyn have a news site? The resistance is going to be fierce.

£1500 available for Zac at 2.82. Probably value whoever wins given that Corbyn is going to.

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

Just the woman to tell via Linked In that you think she's top totty. Silly Alex.

SouthamObserver said:

Plato said:

Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).

Just the woman to tell via Linked In that you think she's top totty. Silly Alex.



A fishing expedition rewarded. I wonder how many late-middle-aged men she offered to connect with before a particularly silly one bit?

TheKrakenAwakes said:

HYUFD said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences

Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%

Popcorn shortage reported in UK......

HYUFD said:

flightpath01 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes

Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.

Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll

Burnham is hopeless.

Moses_ said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34215015

Wonder how long before the 'Eat, Sleep, Campaign, Repeat' t-shirts his team wore will be on Ebay

MyBurningEars said:

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

(Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)

I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.

Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!

Indeed! A colleague didn't know who Christopher Lee was when he passed away, and everyone was sure they'd at least have remembered him from Lord of the Rings, and turns out that was 13 years ago now, and they were too young to see it at the time. I've never felt so old at 28.

flightpath01 said:

HYUFD said:

flightpath01 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

kle4 said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.

Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes

Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.

Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll

Burnham is hopeless.

In your opinion, in the opinion of those who count, the public, he is best of the 4, and that has been shown in every public opinion poll of the leadership campaign. He is also probably the only candidate who could now unite the Corbynite and Cooper and Kendall wings

TheKrakenAwakes said:

HYUFD said:

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

TheKrakenAwakes said:

Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences

Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%

Labour loses a few votes to the Greens, quelle horreur, as some Che Corbyn voters from Islington, Hampstead and Manchester return to their Lucas or TUSC homeland. Meanwhile the candidate who consistently polls best with the average voter, ie the one who actually determines the result in marginal seats, wins the leadership

AndyJS said:

"Isil fighter hiding in Calais migrant camp with 'aim of committing terror attacks in Britain', say local reports

French police under orders to find and arrest Isil fighter on an Islamist watchlist who returned from Syria in August and is hiding among migrants in Calais, La Voix du Nord reports"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11856278/Isil-fighter-hiding-in-Calais-migrant-camp-with-aim-of-committing-terror-attacks-in-Britain-say-local-reports.html

Robert Fox wrote yet another excellent article in the Evening Standard the day before yesterday: this century, the global human population is forecast to increase from 6 billion to over 11 billion. That's at a time when climate change will, more likely than not, increase what pressures we already have on existing resources as it is.

How much thought have Western politicians given to the big picture in this? And what that means for future state stability and migration flows?

This may only be the start.

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

kle4 said:

Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

(Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)

I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.

Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!

Indeed! A colleague didn't know who Christopher Lee was when he passed away, and everyone was sure they'd at least have remembered him from Lord of the Rings, and turns out that was 13 years ago now, and they were too young to see it at the time. I've never felt so old at 28.

I genuinely just checked that (LoTR release) as it seemed so wrong. Then realised that it was released well before I got married - and that'll be 10 years next year. Gulp.