politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB competitions results

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

GIN1138 said:

JackW said:

TudorRose said:

Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;

"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.

What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."

Can you believe your luck Dave?

Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.

He must be tempted...

I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.

I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....

And a staunch Jacobite for the past, oh, 150 years?

Rob, why do you pander to the Disney Scot, he would not recognise a Jacobite if he tripped over one.

They tend to wear big wigs, so are hard to miss, even for the most senile of our posters.......... sorry Jack

David_Evershed said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.

It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!

Doc, I know who was in opposition in 1996, that was sort of the point - the malignant influence was already being felt.

As per the air show: its already too late. In fact it was already too late last Monday when I tried to buy tickets for Mr. Jessup and myself - all sold out. Bummer, and I had an overnight pink ticket too.

Pity! Watching the LD conference on BBC Parliament it is then :-(

LCFC away at Stoke also sold out. It would be good to kick them while they are down.

The Lib Dems have also had a surge in new members. It is said many of the new members will be going to the Annual Conference. It will be interesting to see if they are Liberal or SDP minded and if they have an influence on policy eg being more interventionist and trade protectionist than a liberal should be.

One difference is that the turnout in the LD Leadership election was only 56% (33,897). Which does not indicate that they have a lot of engaged people in their party. A much lower turnout than Labour's membership I believe.

Philip_Thompson said:

malcolmg said:

chestnut said:

malcolmg said:

chestnut said:

Imagine being an MP and former soldier having served in Afghanistan - now led by a CND supporter who wouldn't tackle ISIS, describes Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

What difference does that make, if you are stupid enough to join the army you should expect to be sent to do your master's bidding for your wages. You should should not expect everybody to think you are great because you did this or to fawn over you. It was a career choice not something virtuous.

It makes the difference that you personally made a choice to fight in something, and someone is happy to just dump your work. Sharing values.

No you picked a job , they are told where and when they will fight , it is not a pick and choose. It is just a job selection.

Some jobs are more admirable than others.

Personal opinion , being ordered about like a dog by some halfwit does not light my candle.

PS :When I think of it though , I would be at least a General so back at base quaffing champers etc and ordering some minions to get the grunts cracking. May not be so bad being served hand and foot , a superhero to hand me my clothes , free top notch food and drink and massive pension.

A surprisingly thoughtful article from Charles Moore. Definitely a top piece and worth reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11859029/Nothing-has-changed-in-25-years-toease-my-concerns-about-Islam.html

It is something I would expect from our own SeanT.

kle4 said:

flightpath01 said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

Dair said:

richardDodd said:

SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,

Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!

The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.

So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.

The Argies never owned the islands.

My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.

Pardon me but why is anyone here even thinking about arguing about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Since when was it in doubt? Stop wasting your breath.

I didn't realise we needed your permission to raise or answer or debate random questions.

Did I say I was demanding permission? What is the point of talking about of speculating about the Falklands? They are British territory, we all know that. Why is anyone bothering to discuss it? Leave it to the nutjobs

JackW said:

malcolmg said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

GIN1138 said:

JackW said:

TudorRose said:

Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;

"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.

What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."

Can you believe your luck Dave?

Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.

He must be tempted...

I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.

I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....

And a staunch Jacobite for the past, oh, 150 years?

Rob, why do you pander to the Disney Scot, he would not recognise a Jacobite if he tripped over one.

Poor malcolmg - just a sour deep fried turnip.

Ha Ha Ha , your poor ripostes are as stale as your pies.

RodCrosby said:

'It is understood that Andy Burnham, who came second in the leadership contest, is now unsure as to whether he will take up an invitation to work with Corbyn. One source said Burnham had been approached but that the chances of him joining the shadow cabinet were “slim”.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mps-party-split

Lol, didn't he say he would a few days ago?

RodCrosby said:

'It is understood that Andy Burnham, who came second in the leadership contest, is now unsure as to whether he will take up an invitation to work with Corbyn. One source said Burnham had been approached but that the chances of him joining the shadow cabinet were “slim”.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mps-party-split

Andy Burnham flip flops again. Just bear antics in woods.

RodCrosby said:

'It is understood that Andy Burnham, who came second in the leadership contest, is now unsure as to whether he will take up an invitation to work with Corbyn. One source said Burnham had been approached but that the chances of him joining the shadow cabinet were “slim”.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mps-party-split

Last person out of the shadow cabinet please turn out the lights...

RodCrosby said:

RobD said:

RodCrosby said:

'It is understood that Andy Burnham, who came second in the leadership contest, is now unsure as to whether he will take up an invitation to work with Corbyn. One source said Burnham had been approached but that the chances of him joining the shadow cabinet were “slim”.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mps-party-split

Lol, didn't he say he would a few days ago?

I guess quite a few a bricking it. If Corbyn ends up being destroyed by some as yet unrevealed skeleton unveiled by the MSM, their judgment in agreeing to serve will be questioned...

I'm not sure an as-yet-unrevealed skeleton would be that much of a problem: that could be pinned entirely on Corbyn. It's if his leadership crashes and burns for all the reasons already known about that the taint affects everyone.

RobD said:

RodCrosby said:

'It is understood that Andy Burnham, who came second in the leadership contest, is now unsure as to whether he will take up an invitation to work with Corbyn. One source said Burnham had been approached but that the chances of him joining the shadow cabinet were “slim”.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-mps-party-split

Lol, didn't he say he would a few days ago?

Be fair, he couldn't say he wouldn't until he'd said he would. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a flip-flop and the poor man would have been most confused.

RobD said:

JackW said:

GIN1138 said:

JackW said:

TudorRose said:

Just had an email from Corbyn (actually it came through twice) He'll be there on Wednesday asking questions;

"When I stand at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, I want to be your voice.

What do you want to ask David Cameron? Tell me now and I will put your questions to him in parliament. My questions will be your questions."

Can you believe your luck Dave?

Do you think Cam might stay on now? I mean, in theory, he could have have 15 years as Prime Minister - Beating even the Blessed Margaret.

He must be tempted...

I think it may come down to the personal rather than the political. Ten years as PM and fifteen as Conservative leader is a decent run and he may consider his family should now come first.

I know how it feels. I'm feeling the strain after more than ten years as a PB leg(end) - part of the furniture and six years as PB TOTY ....

And a staunch Jacobite for the past, oh, 150 years?

It would surprise me if the calculations weren't reputational and financial. Cameron's an independently wealthy man, but as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have shown there's oligarch money to be made on the ex-leader circuit for someone who's perceived as a success (Blair generally is abroad). Go in 2020 and, unless anything bonkers happens between now and then he'll go out as the man who returned the Tories to power while cutting the state back to levels they hadn't dreamed of since shoulder pads were a thing. He must know that historically for the two recent three term PMs it was in their third term that their government started to stink the place out a bit - every scandal or mishap is resolutely pinned on you, the public get bored of you and begin to work out your more damaging flaws, the opposition has usually began to work out what it needs to do to win and within your own party the next generation think they know better than you, while your one begins to wonder if it will ever happen to them and want to get rid of you.

kle4 said:

Charles said:

Dair said:

richardDodd said:

SeanT.. slight correction.. the idiot wants to give them away.. not back...and fuck the residents,

Lol, nearly ended up defending the IRA now defending SeanT, what's wrong with the world!

The Argies gave the islands AWAY - to us.

So specifically, it is correct to say we would be giving them BACK.

The Argies never owned the islands.

My understanding was their legal argument was the islands belonged to Spain, and as the successor state to Spain in the region they now belong to them. Not saying that argument is correct, but I find it interesting that it is more complicated than just 'the islands are close to argentina'.

"proximity" becomes quite compelling, likely decisive, if it again comes to a fight, which becomes more likely if you think your opponent isn't up for it.

ydoethur said:

alex. said:

Just theoretically, if Corbyn can't persuade more than a handful of MPs to join his team, how can his leadership actually survive? Regardless of what the "membership" think.

There was a wonderful HIGNFY closing photo in its early days, with the caption 'Margaret Thatcher unveils her new cabinet.' It was her, sitting on her own at the cabinet table.

I think as long as he can get a dozen people to serve, he'll be OK (that was the size of Michael Howard's first Shadow Cabinet, after all) although some might have to double up on shadow briefs. Remember, otherwise it's mostly just random patronage and meaningless titles anyway in Opposition.

It won't look like a government in waiting, but with the Jezziah at the helm it wouldn't anyway even if he had a shadow cabinet of 100 dominated by all three Pitts, Fox, Disraeli, Gladstone, Russell, Palmerston, Lloyd George, Churchill, Macmillan, Attlee, Bevin, Bevan and Kenneth Clarke.

Pitt the glint in the milkman's eye?

Not sure his 'ask a question at pmqs' or a rotating pmqs is going down too well. Coupled with congratulations from Argentina, Hamas, mcguiness. I think the wheels will fall off the bandwagon relatively quickly. Give it 2 years.

Anecdote to finish. A friend of mine, who works in the public sector, rang up this morning very pleased with the news Corbyn had won, although he was laughing at the silliness of the idea of this stupid old man trying to run a major party.

I then explained to him what this means. It is an untrammelled licence to Cameron and Osborne to do what they like. Expect benefit cuts, tax cuts, and an all-out war on the Equalities Act. Expect further that they will drive through more radical reform of the public sector - the NHS, schools and universities - and their funding models. Also expect major cuts in staffing.

Now, some of these may be good things, on their own. But will they be done well? No. Because there is no reason to be careful, or scrupulous, or to think through the consequences, when Britain is a one-party state. Even though I do not credit Cameron and Osborne with the malice imputed to them by Labour, there is no doubt that they are prone to arrogance and also very prone to error. So these things, taken together, will be a shambles - possibly an expensive one too, but let's just concentrate on the fact it will be bad government.

He went quiet for a while. Then he said, 'Yes, you're right.' And the reason he was unnerved is both because his job is in the firing line on this scenario, and because he genuinely cares about the poor and disabled and is fearful about the impact of further cuts on them.

Corbyn's supporters will blame the government. They should blame themselves. For while Cooper and Burnham could not have won an election, they would have kept the government from complacency, and that's a damn good second.

Labour have betrayed the people of this country - most of all those they claim to care about - in an act of pathetic, futile and disgusting self-indulgence by electing a man who is 'right on' message and completely, hopelessly, out of his depth. They deserve the opprobrium they will receive. What we need, and fast, is a replacement for them.

Good night, on this dark night for our democracy.

A leader of the opposition that can't even work out his own questions, let alone answers, can't be heading for power.

chestnut said:

malcolmg said:

No you picked a job , they are told where and when they will fight , it is not a pick and choose. It is just a job selection.

And then you are told all fighting is pointless.

Imagine the next SNP leader tells you, "looking for independence is pointless".

How you going to feel?

I would be disappointed but get on with my life.

JWisemann said:

As counterfactual as usual for anti-historian ydoether. The Tories would really be complacent against the likes of burnham and cooper who represent at worst a very mild dilution of their policies and programme even in the unlikely scenario they won, so no threat whatsoever. Corbyn may be up against it but any kind of victory for him would be a devastating blow to everything they have tirelessly set in place for decades. They are much more likely to be on their toes because the stakes are so much higher. This is probably the best thing about it.

I actually agree with you for once, Mr Wisemann. This is like politics without the safety net [of the other side not really being that bad, even if we can't admit that in public]

Oh that David? Pah.

A good anecdote from @ydoethur - the Leader of the Opposition needs to lead that opposition, lest the incumbent government become complacent.

Corbyn - if he can be bothered to turn up - wants others to tell him his questions to the PM.

How Corbyn's win is being reported in the US, Part 1: Time Magazine:

"Are Labour really going to do this? Are they really preparing for a Marxist Jonestown massacre? It appears they are. If nothing else, it will be interesting."

Sandpit said:

A good anecdote from @ydoethur - the Leader of the Opposition needs to lead that opposition, lest the incumbent government become complacent.

Corbyn - if he can be bothered to turn up - wants others to tell him his questions to the PM.

You'll be suggesting next that Tory backbenchers ought to come up with their own questions to the PM.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn is astonishing and I find it highly unlikely that he will lead in the polls because the refugee migrant crisis will dominate the news over the next few years. Germany and others are having doubts even now about Merkels decision to allow nearly 1 million into Germany this year and Corbyn supporting the unlimited access to Europe and demanding the UK accepts more than the 20,000 already agreed will be a big vote loser.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I believe they call this a bitch fight. Between Owen Jones & Alastair Campbell (or rather Old Labour v New Labour)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COuffBNWEAAKjdI.jpg

How many years since Old Labour last won an election?

The most unedifying spectacle on here today has to be the left wingers squirming around trying and failing to justify Corbyn not attending PMQs. I always base their answers, arrogance and particular hypocriscy on what they would have said and how they would have reacted if for example Cameron had done the same as LOTO. They were have torn hm to shreds without fail. They would have accused him of cowardice. Jeez one leftie on here even managed to blame Cameron for Corbyn not dong PMQS calling him a bully

WTF.? Labour andCorbyn.... You deserve each other. Let the hunting begin they don't call it the glorious twelfth for nothing.

richardDodd said:

SRentool.. The Tory backbenchers are not the Opposition

The idea that any LOTO comes up with all of their own questions is clearly nonsense. Better to get input from the rank and file rather than from a couple of PPE wonks.

Theuniondivvie said:

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

richardDodd said:

Apparently being in the armed forces and defending your country is not an honourable profession..according to a Scot.. Gonna be a lot of Fine Scottish regiments disagree with that assumption..

You mean the one Scottish regiment.

Don't be silly.
There are several battalions (7) in the Royal Regiment of Scotland which is much more a 'brigade' or 'division' than a regiment.

So that's the one regiment then.

No - 7

From Mary Poppins (with apologies to Walt Disney)

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it is just a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders said aye

Corby's not afraid to speak
Fruit loop points and bad
Labour had just a week
To see that Jerry is mad

But Hattie used the word
That allowed them to oppose
The biggest word they had ever heard
And this is how it goes,

ohhh..........

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye

He supported all around and banned
And everywhere He went
He'd use his word and all would say
Labour can never repent

Welcomed in the house they
Pass the day with tea
He'd say his special word to them
And then they sing with glee

Ohhh.......

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle ..... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye

.....you can say it backwards you know? a it becomes "atrocious-is-Corbyn-catastrophic-super
But that's going just a bit too far left don't you think?

Ohhhh........

When Tom and Jerry have your tongue
There's no need for dismay
Just summon up this special word
And then there's lots to say

But better use it carefully
Or Jerry will change your life


For example, Khan said the word just before nominations closed at midday
Yet....now he won't vote for him at all .....or so he now does say..... !

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ALL TOGETHER NOW !!!!!

(Wait for it ....wait for it......)

Super-catastrophic-Labour- are - atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Labour- are-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle ..... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye

Repeat as Labour fade into history.........

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I believe they call this a bitch fight. Between Owen Jones & Alastair Campbell (or rather Old Labour v New Labour)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COuffBNWEAAKjdI.jpg

How many years since Old Labour last won an election?

twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/642785117795168256

I enjoyed the axis labels. I assume the official registration would be "New Labour (War Criminal) Party"

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

richardDodd said:

Apparently being in the armed forces and defending your country is not an honourable profession..according to a Scot.. Gonna be a lot of Fine Scottish regiments disagree with that assumption..

You mean the one Scottish regiment.

Don't be silly.
There are several battalions (7) in the Royal Regiment of Scotland which is much more a 'brigade' or 'division' than a regiment.

So that's the one regiment then.

No - 7

'The Royal Regiment of Scotland is the senior and only Scottish line infantry regiment'

I'd say don't be a fecking moron if I didn't know that battle was long lost.

Mr. Moses, an unkind man might infer that you're not necessarily taken by Comrade Corbyn.

flightpath01 said:

MTimT said:

JWisemann said:

Fair doos to the rational people in the PLP who are not gong to serve in the Shadow cabinet. They at least maintain some sense of proportion.
I find it both laughable and pathetic that Armstrong is willing to serve as chief whip. I think the chief whip gets a bit of an extra sub don't they? If so she should be taken to court because by Corbyn's professed example it must be the biggest non job in politics.

Armstrong chief whip? Not Hilary Armstrong who was responsible for the most God-awful cock-up when Blair was told a vote was safe and so didn't turn up for a vote Labour lost by one vote? And she is going to be responsible?

I didn't believe this day could get any more surreal but it has, if this is true.

Theuniondivvie said:

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

richardDodd said:

Apparently being in the armed forces and defending your country is not an honourable profession..according to a Scot.. Gonna be a lot of Fine Scottish regiments disagree with that assumption..

You mean the one Scottish regiment.

Don't be silly.
There are several battalions (7) in the Royal Regiment of Scotland which is much more a 'brigade' or 'division' than a regiment.

So that's the one regiment then.

No - 7

'The Royal Regiment of Scotland is the senior and only Scottish line infantry regiment'

I'd say don't be a fecking moron if I didn't know that battle was long lost.

Yeah but how many Scottish Regiments did it take to lose that battle?

(Before any of your countrymen get upset, I know the Scots don't lose battles, that's why they've been the backbone of the British army for centuries)

richardDodd said:

Mr RENTOOL the Speaker does not have that authority...

Actually he does.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Moses, an unkind man might infer that you're not necessarily taken by Comrade Corbyn.

You can put me down as a maybe.. :-)

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

SandyRentool said:

Sandpit said:

A good anecdote from @ydoethur - the Leader of the Opposition needs to lead that opposition, lest the incumbent government become complacent.

Corbyn - if he can be bothered to turn up - wants others to tell him his questions to the PM.

You'll be suggesting next that Tory backbenchers ought to come up with their own questions to the PM.

A fair point. Some of the planted-by-the-whips questions are a little silly, much better for the backbenchers to raise a genuine issue than make a petty party-political point. All parties guilty of this over the years.

If any government back bencher begins a question with 'Does my Right Honourable Friend agree...' the Speaker should just tell them to shut up and sit down.

How's about "Would my Right Honourable Friend wish to disassociate himself from the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in support of the terrorists that wish to destroy our country?"

@NeilGarratt
Corbyn's been congratulated by Gerry Adams, the Argentine President & Hamas…but half the shadow cabinet has resigned. So it's a mixed result

Moses_ said:

From Mary Poppins (with apologies to Walt Disney)

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it is just a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders said aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders said aye

Corby's not afraid to speak
Fruit loop points and bad
Labour had just a week
To see that Jerry is mad

But Hattie used the word
That allowed them to oppose
The biggest word they had ever heard
And this is how it goes,

ohhh..........

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle .... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle .....three quidders say aye

He supported all around and banned
And everywhere He went
He'd use his word and all would say
Labour can never repent

Welcomed in the house they
Pass the day with tea
He'd say his special word to them
And then they sing with glee

Ohhh.......

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle ..... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye

.....you can say it backwards you know? a it becomes "atrocious-is-Corbyn-catastrophic-super
But that's going just a bit too far left don't you think?

Ohhhh........

When Tom and Jerry have your tongue
There's no need for dismay
Just summon up this special word
And then there's lots to say

But better use it carefully
Or Jerry will change your life


For example, Khan said the word just before nominations closed at midday
Yet....now he won't vote for him at all .....or so he now does say..... !

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. ALL TOGETHER NOW !!!!!

(Wait for it ....wait for it......)

Super-catastrophic-Labour- are - atrocious
Even though the sound of it has a bad prognosis
If you say it loud enough, you'll always have neurosis
Super-catastrophic-Labour- are-atrocious

Um diddle, diddle ..... three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye
Um diddle, diddle ......three quidders say aye

Repeat as Labour fade into history.........

Super-catastrophic-Corbyn-is-atrocious

A for effort but you are two syllables short on the first line...

TCPoliticalBetting said:

David_Evershed said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Er, in 1996 Blair Mandelson and Campell were in opposition, but I agree. Politicisation of management in the NHS and Police were similarly affected. Armed forces too from what I hear.

It looks as if I am not going to be able to sneak off to Duxford next week, though sorely tempted. May try the Jerome trick, but unlikely to be granted shore leave. Have a good time!

Doc, I know who was in opposition in 1996, that was sort of the point - the malignant influence was already being felt.

As per the air show: its already too late. In fact it was already too late last Monday when I tried to buy tickets for Mr. Jessup and myself - all sold out. Bummer, and I had an overnight pink ticket too.

Pity! Watching the LD conference on BBC Parliament it is then :-(

LCFC away at Stoke also sold out. It would be good to kick them while they are down.

The Lib Dems have also had a surge in new members. It is said many of the new members will be going to the Annual Conference. It will be interesting to see if they are Liberal or SDP minded and if they have an influence on policy eg being more interventionist and trade protectionist than a liberal should be.

One difference is that the turnout in the LD Leadership election was only 56% (33,897). Which does not indicate that they have a lot of engaged people in their party. A much lower turnout than Labour's membership I believe.

Why would you pay to vote and then not vote?

Which of the Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse has still to endorse Corbyn?

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Spyn, not sure. Two have reportedly resigned.

Splitters

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Moses, 'twas a fine cover version

I can reveal that no information regarding the enormo-haddock, octo-lemur, MD StarGun, solar death ray, or trebuchets will be granted to Corbyn.

I shall rest easy tonight Though I am still a tad concerned about TSEs Death Star