politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile a message from Marf

Mr. M, not only oldies who get that.

Hmm. I was going to post a Not The Nine O'Clock News video of Griff Rhys Jones lighting one up after Pamela Stephenson tells him he has lung cancer, but can't find it.

Oh well.

watford30 said:

saddened said:

Doing his best to get the press onside.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/642350910761533440

Look at that ugly, angry face.

Nasty man who won't cope with the pressure. At some point he'll lose his temper publicly and in a spectacular way.

I agree he won't cope with the pressure and that he'll have a temper problem - you see it in his interviews; but Michael Crick deserves to be looked at angrily by everyone.

MikeK said:

david_herdson said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

Despite the voting system, I still think UKIP should withdraw from the mayoralty election. Normal people may not understand and we can't risk Khan making London the New Harare

That won't happen Sam, UKIP must put in an appearance, although I will be voting for Zac myself; unless that is, UKIP comes up with a potential winner. Though I don't see it happening.

Why not vote UKIP 1 / Con 2?

To be quite honest, although i'm still a kipper, UKIP has done bugger all to earn my vote since the election. It's as though the party has become paralysed by it's lack of a breakthrough to parliament.

If the party begins to stir and starts to look alive again, I may reconsider.

"It's as though the party has become paralysed by it's Farage's lack of a breakthrough to parliament."

Fixed it for you....

Now that is a brilliant Cartoon.

Even now I can't make myself believe they are that bonkers.

tic toc tic toc...........

143-3 after 25 overs. Shaping up to be a tight game

watford30 said:

Plato said:

The endless circus of rallies with him heading the billing is about to end, I don't think he has a clue what LotO really means.

watford30 said:

saddened said:

Doing his best to get the press onside.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/642350910761533440

Look at that ugly, angry face.

Nasty man.

Indeed. The adoring crowds will soon make way for those more hostile and critical. Then he'll crack.

His voters will (will want to) take over the Labour party - they will not be bothered about that. I suggest that what is about to break out is civil war. It may in fact already be too late. I mean just look at the available 'talent' that so singularly failed to make their mark in the campaign. Who will be the general to fight Corbyn's Jihad?

MarqueeMark said:

bigjohnowls said:

adrian mcmenamin ‏@adrianmcmenamin 36m36 minutes ago
@lukeakehurst @hopisen @_IanMoss @DPJHodges Corbyn wins on 1st ballot with 53.8% share - just under 229,000 votes

Huh? That's a very specific prediction - or else....

Explained as YouGov poll, reweighted for London turnouts - so a calculated figure with a slightly spurious decimal place added.

MikeK said:

watford30 said:

saddened said:

Doing his best to get the press onside.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/642350910761533440

Look at that ugly, angry face.

Nasty man.

Surely Jezza didn't hit Crick on the head with pamphlet?

Its the instant rebuttal in the comments that we should note.
If my reading of lefties like corbyn is right - and he comes across as a classic to me - then its all a question of pressing the right button to watch the inner Mr Angry in him come out and see him self destruct. Softly softly catchee monkee.

MikeK said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. K, I'm surprised Farage hasn't been more visible regarding the migrant crisis.

He - Farage - has been making major speeches all over. It's just that it's not being reported on the MSM.

Farage may think pontificating at the European Parliament is making a major speech but most of the rest of the country does not. He should speak in Parliament if he wants to be broadcast.

Oh wait ...

Mr. Flightpath, I wonder if, at PMQs, Cameron would ask him to deny giving money to someone he thought was an IRA chap on the run from British authorities.

Could be a Lyndon B Johnson moment [I forget the claim, but he made one against an opponent just so the chap had to deny it].

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeK said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. K, I'm surprised Farage hasn't been more visible regarding the migrant crisis.

He - Farage - has been making major speeches all over. It's just that it's not being reported on the MSM.

Farage may think pontificating at the European Parliament is making a major speech but most of the rest of the country does not. He should speak in Parliament if he wants to be broadcast.

Oh wait ...

In fairness, speeches by those who are elected to Parliament are broadcast all the time, clips at least, but I very rarely ever see footage of a speech from in Parliament.

Alanbrooke said:

Rumblings begin in Germany that Merkel has screwed up the migrant crisis. CSU not happy.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/seehofer-bezeichnet-merkels-fluechtlingspolitik-als-fehler-13797599.html

And the rumblings will grow and grow and not just in Germany. Catastrophic decision for everyone including the refugees and migrants who at some time will be denied access to Europe and then who knows what will happen.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alanbrooke said:

Rumblings begin in Germany that Merkel has screwed up the migrant crisis. CSU not happy.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/seehofer-bezeichnet-merkels-fluechtlingspolitik-als-fehler-13797599.html

And the rumblings will grow and grow and not just in Germany. Catastrophic decision for everyone including the refugees and migrants who at some time will be denied access to Europe and then who knows what will happen.

It's a classic case of a law (or decision) hastily made in response to events. She would have done much better to commit Germany to immediate humanitarian work whilst she quickly discussed her plan with other countries.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeK said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. K, I'm surprised Farage hasn't been more visible regarding the migrant crisis.

He - Farage - has been making major speeches all over. It's just that it's not being reported on the MSM.

Farage may think pontificating at the European Parliament is making a major speech but most of the rest of the country does not. He should speak in Parliament if he wants to be broadcast.

Oh wait ...

In fairness, speeches by those who are elected to Parliament are broadcast all the time, clips at least, but I very rarely ever see footage of a speech from in Parliament.

In an increasingly digital age Farage and anyone else who is capable of delivering impressive speeches should be able to increase their profile. Daniel Hannan laying into Gordon Brown raised his profile considerably. Same goes for Farage laying into Herman Van Rampuy.

It will not matter if a speech is made in the HoC or in the European Parliament as long as it goes viral.

No doubt Phil T will be along to claim the only speeches that matter are those made in the HoC and appear on the 6 o'clock news.

JEO said:

RobD said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, and if a volte face is attempted, migrants there will fear being returned, migrants coming will be angry (and in vast numbers), it'll make Merkel, rightly, look stupid, and the rest of the EU will be pissed at Germany.

It was crackers right from the off.

The sheer numbers of migrants that will come will make mass deportation an impossible task. The German civil service predicts 800,000 will come this year, but that was before arrivals increased 50% after Merkel's announcement, so let's say 1.2 million is a more likely figure.

If we want to deport half of those, that's 600,000 to different places around the world. The D-Day landings entailed moving 160,000 people. Of course, there were tanks and weaponry they had to move too, but it does show the scale of administration will be similar.

A more reasonable comparator would be inernstional passenger numbers. FAR alone handled 52 million in 2014, say 26 million in each direction.

I do not know what FAR is, but that's not a good comparison as people general handle their own travel arrangements. This would need to be a government administered and executed effort.

FRA (Frankfurt airport). Apologies for the typo. Yes, I mentioned it for a sense of scale, and given people are typically deported by planes, and not boats, it seemed appropriate.

JosiasJessop said:

watford30 said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, and if a volte face is attempted, migrants there will fear being returned, migrants coming will be angry (and in vast numbers), it'll make Merkel, rightly, look stupid, and the rest of the EU will be pissed at Germany.

It was crackers right from the off.

The sheer numbers of migrants that will come will make mass deportation an impossible task. The German civil service predicts 800,000 will come this year, but that was before arrivals increased 50% after Merkel's announcement, so let's say 1.2 million is a more likely figure.

If we want to deport half of those, that's 600,000 to different places around the world. The D-Day landings entailed moving 160,000 people. Of course, there were tanks and weaponry they had to move too, but it does show the scale of administration will be similar.

A Boeing 747-400 takes up to 345 passengers. On those numbers, and without accounting for escorts, the Germans would need to fill up nearly 1740 flights.

That's simply not going to happen.

The 747-400 actually has a maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400 660 passenger loading.

However, the most passengers a 747 has ever carried on a flight is 1,088. It was 1,086 at take-off, but two were born en route (and I wonder how many were conceived; either on purpose, or by accident with everyone squeezed in)

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-passengers-on-an-aircraft/

How much would it cost to charter a 747 for 600 flights?

Signed up to the Conservatives volunteering team. We have to stop Khan becoming London Mayor. I'll knock doors all the way until May to make sure we avoid that fate.

BigRich said:

The margin of victory for Sadiq Karn is being reported as being large, and over all it is but that's mainly as a result of the registered and affiliated supporters, amongst the full Members it is actually quite slender, less that 1000 votes, 24,983 to 24,019.

Do other PBs think it is possible/likely that Jeremy Corbyn will win the overall vote, but not amongst the Full Members, and if so does that weaken his position?

Entirely possible.

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

watford30 said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, and if a volte face is attempted, migrants there will fear being returned, migrants coming will be angry (and in vast numbers), it'll make Merkel, rightly, look stupid, and the rest of the EU will be pissed at Germany.

It was crackers right from the off.

The sheer numbers of migrants that will come will make mass deportation an impossible task. The German civil service predicts 800,000 will come this year, but that was before arrivals increased 50% after Merkel's announcement, so let's say 1.2 million is a more likely figure.

If we want to deport half of those, that's 600,000 to different places around the world. The D-Day landings entailed moving 160,000 people. Of course, there were tanks and weaponry they had to move too, but it does show the scale of administration will be similar.

A Boeing 747-400 takes up to 345 passengers. On those numbers, and without accounting for escorts, the Germans would need to fill up nearly 1740 flights.

That's simply not going to happen.

The 747-400 actually has a maximum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400 660 passenger loading.

However, the most passengers a 747 has ever carried on a flight is 1,088. It was 1,086 at take-off, but two were born en route (and I wonder how many were conceived; either on purpose, or by accident with everyone squeezed in)

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-passengers-on-an-aircraft/

How much would it cost to charter a 747 for 600 flights?

More money than I have.

It might be much cheaper to book many cruise liners. Not that I'm necessarily in favour of either of these approaches.

(As an aside, up to the 1990s there were old railway carriages stored in strategic places - the military range at Pigs Bay just to the east of Southend being one) that were allegedly to be used to evacuate London after any unstipulated disaster.)

richardDodd said:

Ma Merkel will eventually do more damage to Europe than Adolf..and it will last forever..

Weirdest remark of the week, despite plenty of competition.

Slackbladder said:

BigRich said:

The margin of victory for Sadiq Karn is being reported as being large, and over all it is but that's mainly as a result of the registered and affiliated supporters, amongst the full Members it is actually quite slender, less that 1000 votes, 24,983 to 24,019.

Do other PBs think it is possible/likely that Jeremy Corbyn will win the overall vote, but not amongst the Full Members, and if so does that weaken his position?

Entirely possible.

I don't think so. Jowell is a lot more popular in London than any of the three ABCs are in the rest of the country. Plus I think Corbyn is more popular than Khan.

MaxPB said:

Signed up to the Conservatives volunteering team. We have to stop Khan becoming London Mayor. I'll knock doors all the way until May to make sure we avoid that fate.

Might join you!

JEO said:

RobD said:

JEO said:

RobD said:

JEO said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, and if a volte face is attempted, migrants there will fear being returned, migrants coming will be angry (and in vast numbers), it'll make Merkel, rightly, look stupid, and the rest of the EU will be pissed at Germany.

It was crackers right from the off.

The sheer numbers of migrants that will come will make mass deportation an impossible task. The German civil service predicts 800,000 will come this year, but that was before arrivals increased 50% after Merkel's announcement, so let's say 1.2 million is a more likely figure.

If we want to deport half of those, that's 600,000 to different places around the world. The D-Day landings entailed moving 160,000 people. Of course, there were tanks and weaponry they had to move too, but it does show the scale of administration will be similar.

A more reasonable comparator would be inernstional passenger numbers. FAR alone handled 52 million in 2014, say 26 million in each direction.

I do not know what FAR is, but that's not a good comparison as people general handle their own travel arrangements. This would need to be a government administered and executed effort.

FRA (Frankfurt airport). Apologies for the typo. Yes, I mentioned it for a sense of scale, and given people are typically deported by planes, and not boats, it seemed appropriate.

So you think it's a likelihood that Germany will deport hundreds of thousands of people?

Nope.

isam said:

MaxPB said:

Signed up to the Conservatives volunteering team. We have to stop Khan becoming London Mayor. I'll knock doors all the way until May to make sure we avoid that fate.

Might join you!

It seems UKIP are a gateway drug for the WWC.

Labour ---> UKIP ---> Tories

What will the Greens do in London if Zac is candidate? Former editor of Ecologist, author of green books etc

Tissue_Price said:

isam said:

MaxPB said:

Signed up to the Conservatives volunteering team. We have to stop Khan becoming London Mayor. I'll knock doors all the way until May to make sure we avoid that fate.

Might join you!

It seems UKIP are a gateway drug for the WWC.

Labour ---> UKIP ---> Tories

I wouldn't go that far!

It's.a.Lon.don.Thing

Managed to turn a 5k green on this cricket into backing the Aussies £17 @750/1

Looking at the migrant crisis, I think the Security Services all over Europe, must be sat there in utter disbelief at what is unfolding before their eyes. We expect them to keep us safe, yet the front and back door to Europe has been opened with a 'welcome' sign to all and sundry.

We have no idea who/what/where all those single men have come from and I believe we have totally compromised our security for years to come.

A splendid victory for Democratic Socialism!

(EDIT: ooops a day early!)

Plato said:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/its-not-jeremy-corbyn-thats-going-kill-labour

But raw numbers tell a different story. 10 per cent turnout among affliated trade unionists who were automatically enrolled meant close to 200,000 votes. In the last mayoral selection, close to 24,000 affliate members voted. This time, it was just 9,875. Why does that matter?

Well, among other things, it suggests that if, as looks likely, the Conservatives pass the Trade Union Bill, we now have a clear idea just how many trade unionists will opt-in to paying into Labour's political funds: not very many at all.

Plato,

That's a very good point, and something that is getting very little media attention. there are over 4,000,000 trade union members of Affiliated trade unions that are currently paying a political levy to the Labour Party! Which is supposedly optional, but needs to be opted out of. of these the unions bosses could only persuade 150,000 to register (for free) to vote in the Labour Party leadership (+ approximately 45,000 who are already full members of the Labour Party in there own right) how may of the other 3,800,000 will they persuade to pay a levy when it becomes opt in? very few I suspect.

According to a leached internal Unite document in 2010 between 30-35% voted Conservative, but at the time only 7% of there members had opted out. the only sensible conclusion is that the test must have been unaware of this option, or found it to complex and bureaucratic to bother opting out, but if the system changes, that's a lot of money that labour will not be getting!

The full breakdown of the results - will be interesting to compare tomorrows result with this:

http://www.labourinlondon.org.uk/just_announced_sadiq_khan_is_the_labour_candidate_for_mayor_of_london_in_2016

Philip_Thompson said:

MP_SE said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeK said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. K, I'm surprised Farage hasn't been more visible regarding the migrant crisis.

He - Farage - has been making major speeches all over. It's just that it's not being reported on the MSM.

Farage may think pontificating at the European Parliament is making a major speech but most of the rest of the country does not. He should speak in Parliament if he wants to be broadcast.

Oh wait ...

In fairness, speeches by those who are elected to Parliament are broadcast all the time, clips at least, but I very rarely ever see footage of a speech from in Parliament.

In an increasingly digital age Farage and anyone else who is capable of delivering impressive speeches should be able to increase their profile. Daniel Hannan laying into Gordon Brown raised his profile considerably. Same goes for Farage laying into Herman Van Rampuy.

It will not matter if a speech is made in the HoC or in the European Parliament as long as it goes viral.

No doubt Phil T will be along to claim the only speeches that matter are those made in the HoC and appear on the 6 o'clock news.

Considering I'd already said he should be taking part in interviews in London, no I won't be saying it is only the HoC that matters ...

He'll be on QT next week and everyone will be saying "He's never off the telly!"

PB Tories sounding a lot like Sion Simon this afternoon. Risky business.

Jonathan said:

PB Tories sounding a lot like Sion Simon this afternoon. Risky business.

Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour Corbyn will increase his majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us for the century since 1906. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Labour government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.

That is a frightening responsibility. The young princes who now stride the parade ground with the confidence born of aristocratic schooling can never be afraid. They never have been. Like latter day Pushkins drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg, they are bursting with their sense of destiny. It’s not the Milibands, the Ballses or the Burnhams Ummm Dianne Abbott, Dennis Skinner, who are unconsciously nervous. This is the moment for which they were created. They are ready.

SeanT said:

Diane Abbott. Shadow Health Minister.

Yes.

http://news.sky.com/story/1550955/five-biggest-corbyn-rumours-in-westminster

Noooooooo.

Dear Mr. Swan,

Thanks you for publishing the views of the Labour elite. who, as always, do not seem to even consider why their brand has gone so far out of fashion. There are of course many reasons for this but the one I would like to draw your attention to seems to have had little exposure outside of, perhap, Scotland.

At the end of WW2 there were numerous areas in the UK that could be considered to be failing economically, largely but not exclusively because of historical tides of trade and industry that were running against them. They were shitty places to live and raise a family, most of those areas voted Labour. Seventy years of those areas that still vote Labour are still, on the whole, shitty places to live and raise a family. Labour's political dominance over decades has done sweet feck all. Its almost as if Labour politicians wanted to keep their core voters poor and in shit conditions, no other explanation seems to fit.

So maybe, just maybe, people have started to notice that Labour are not for "people like us".

Love and Kisses

Wandsworth Lad.

As you will appreciate, Wandsworth in 1978 was one of those areas. 37 years of Conservative Council leadership later, it's one of the best places to live in London, whatever your income.
Voting Conservative works.
(PPB over)

runnymede said:

Fantastic - the shadow cabinet will look like a freak show, worse than Redwood's campaign team in 1995...

Your mention of Redwood shows how sane even tory nutjobs are compared to Labour's.