politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Zac to win mayoralty, Corbyn to survive, Trump to fail: Ips

Same chance of finding life on Mars as England getting to a football final!

I like the fact a similar percentage think England will get to the Euros finals as do that we'll find life on Mars.

Re Zac winning, I think the public are wrong.

All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Re Zac winning, I think the public are wrong.

All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.

Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Re Zac winning, I think the public are wrong.

All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.

Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.

Indeed. That said Zac does have Sir Lynton running his campaign.

London was Labour's only decent performance in May, I expect that to continue next May

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Lol - nae had the best year myself - chin up oldboy

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

This is a great little skit with contemporary videos

00:59: To the reader who has joined us after Googling "Who won the 1979 general election?", welcome! It's early days yet but it looks likely that the Conservatives will be in, with a big enough majority to withstand any number of by-election shocks.

00:57: But the BBC's election forecasters don't agree. After 22 results they have a new projection: ...

00:51: "I've not sat in this chair before," says new anchor Dimbleby, "But usually we'd have a clear idea of the result by now, wouldn't we?" "Oh, yes," says David Butler, "We'd usually have many more results."

00:48: The North West is not going for Margaret Thatcher at all. Just a two point swing to the Tories there so far. But big swings away from Labour in the South.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/ns-liveblog-retro-edition-1979

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Re Zac winning, I think the public are wrong.

All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.

Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.

Maybe but I note that I have received far more literature (and far more impressively produced literature) from the Tories, starting immediately after Zac was chosen, so far than from Labour. Early days of course and only anecdotal. But sign-ups does not necessarily mean people willing to put in the actual hard work.

Cyclefree said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Re Zac winning, I think the public are wrong.

All the Mayoral elections have been insulated from the national voting picture bar 2008.

Moreover, London is not Britain. Huge numbers of Corbynites are being signed up in London. This will only strengthen their ground game here.

Maybe but I note that I have received far more literature (and far more impressively produced literature) from the Tories, starting immediately after Zac was chosen, so far than from Labour. Early days of course and only anecdotal. But sign-ups does not necessarily mean people willing to put in the actual hard work.

I haven't had a peep out of any candidate. I'm a floating voter in this election, being so far pretty unimpressed by both main candidates so far. I may confine myself to minor candidates on this occasion.

HYUFD said:

Agree with all of that except I think Khan will win London which is more pro Corbyn than average. I think Trump will win the nomination but lose the presidency

I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn. London is at high risk of terrorism and Londoners are no keener than anyone else at being slaughtered by homicidal maniacs or at having their politicians stroke their chins while wondering whether to order the police to shoot those self-same maniacs. Nor are we particularly keen on politicians inviting in and/or being friendly with those who justify and excuse said maniacs

''I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn.''

Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.

taffys said:

''I do wonder why people say London is more pro-Corbyn.''

Plus what's the relationship between Khan and the Corbynistas??? Khan's rhetoric is very pro business, very pro City. Goodness knows what they will make of that in Islington.

So was Livingstone when he started out. Now look at him. I think Khan will say whatever he thinks is needed. I'm not sure how much of what he says he actually believes. He will, I think, be as pro-Corbyn as is politically expedient for him.

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.

Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.

Don't think I can afford the lay lols - I've gone all patriotic though at 1.5

Will JBriskin have a bankroll still?

Oh the fun we have

Plato_Says said:

Mssrs @Morris_Dancer and @HurstLlama - thanks for the recommends FPT.

You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.

In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.

When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.

Kevin_McCandless said:

Housing will be the only real issue in the London campaign. Protection for renters, houses for first time buyers, etc. etc. It's one of those things that cuts across all racial and class lines.

I agree with that. But if a terrorist act happens in the lead up to the election, it could change matters. Housing and security are the key concerns, even though the Mayor can do relatively little about the latter. What is said and tone - however - are very important. And Livingstone's and Corbyn's recent comments will not help Khan.

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.

Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.

Very kind.

The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.

I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.

So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on

HurstLlama said:

You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.

In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.

When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.

England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.

If the Proteas close up shop to end at say 110-1 (With a touch of bad light), then tommorow 300 or so are needed.

South Africa would bite your hand off for a draw from there (And if wickets fall, their run rate will drop to sub 2.5), it's unlikely but not a dead cert it isn't a draw.

Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.

Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in.
I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on.
I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely.
I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate.
I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy.
The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.

I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.

I keep asking on the twits if I (and therefore most of us here) are quasi-in the lobby. IDK.

Anywhoo-

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/681829514876448769

It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.

JBriskin said:

I keep asking on the twits if I (and therefore most of us here) are quasi-in the lobby. IDK.

Anywhoo-

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/681829514876448769

Yeah, yeah: they've been saying this sort of stuff for months behind their hands. There was going to be all sorts of stuff happening if McDonnell was made Shadow Chancellor. And a big fat nothing happened.

Nice keks; now't in'em.

JBriskin said:

Just me that finds the bog standard #skynews a bit bitchy and OTT with regards to making sure you're not exactly sure what's going on in the cricket unless you pay full price ???

Saffers are 86/2. Amla just gone, caught behind.

It looks like it's getting rather dark, floodlights on and big black clouds in the sky. A rain or light delay could favour the draw.

JBriskin said:

I keep asking on the twits if I (and therefore most of us here) are quasi-in the lobby. IDK.

Anywhoo-

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/681829514876448769

How can you walk out if you're being fired? I can't imagine that Jeremy Corbyn would dispense with only Hilary Benn.

JBriskin said:

I keep asking on the twits if I (and therefore most of us here) are quasi-in the lobby. IDK.

Anywhoo-

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/681829514876448769

What does this mass walkout look like - backbenchers not wanting to be in the shad cab, even though Corbyn doesn't want them there anyway?

JBriskin said:

Thanks - great update Sandpit

Make that 88/3 Elgar out, caught by Root at 2nd slip.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.

Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.

Very kind.

The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.

I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.

So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on

Even, then I doubt it. Corbyn-led Labour v pro-EU Conservatives v anti-EU Conservatives/UKIP sees each faction winning 25-30% of the vote, IMHO.

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.

Look on the bright side, five years after 1992 you won a landslide, and also the Conservative Party's strongest asset will not be fighting the next election.

Very kind.

The left (Lab and Lib Dems) are in the weakest position I've seen in my lifetime and prognosis is not good, things are going to get worse before they get better.

I mean the Tory party might also fatally split over the EU.

So whilst the Tories are banging on about the minutiae of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, Corbyn and Labour focus on the economy, that might see Labour taking power if Owen Paterson becomes Tory leader and there's a recession on

Even, then I doubt it. Corbyn-led Labour v pro-EU Conservatives v anti-EU Conservatives/UKIP sees each faction winning 25-30% of the vote, IMHO.

2015 has been a dream for the Tories, I just know we cannot expect Labour to be so flipping self indulgent

Sean_F said:

Jonathan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

Don't work for a pollster, but 2015 has to rate amongst the worst years ever. Beats 83, 92 by some margin.

1347 was surely worse?

What did the pollsters get wrong in 1347?

Dair said:

MarqueeMark said:

It does somewhat counter-intuitive that Corbyn survives Mayor Goldsmith.... If he survives that, he is there until 2020.

May 2016 will not be a very good time to be Jeremy Corbyn.

They face a massive defeat in Scotland, losing perhaps half their MSPs.

They face a significant defeat in Wales, losing control and possibly being unable to reach a coalition to remain in charge.

The London Mayoralty and retaining control of the London Assembly are his only hopes for anything positive.

I don't know what the current projections are for the Assembly but if he loses the Mayoralty then surely he might also lose the Assembly as well?

A four-fold catastrophe may be hard for even the great Jezziah to survive.

Losing the London Assembly election would be the worst result for Jezza. Labour won that in 2012 even though Boris beat Ken. Losing the mayoralty could be blamed on Khan, Jezza would own losing the Assembly.

ZERO chance of Trump becoming POTUS in 2016.

Pulpstar said:

ZERO chance of Trump becoming POTUS in 2016.

Bold - isn't he still beating Clinton in the head to heads ?

What's gonna go wrong for him ?

Key prediction for 2015:

I will remain top of the pb fantasy football, until two weeks before the end, a la Arsenal.

DavidL said:

Those economic predictions are extremely pessimistic on a range of fronts. If that is what Joe and Jenna Public expect then it is surprising that the Tories are doing as well as they are (and seriously worrying for Corbyn's Cronies). Most of the surprises will be on the upside ahead of expectations.

Personally, I suspect that 2015 will be seen as peak immigration with a still strong but less rapidly growing employment market sucking fewer in.
I think it is unlikely that there will be any increase in mortgage rates this year although fixed deals for multiple years will probably edge up as the year goes on.
I would expect inflation to continue to skirt with zero unless there is a very big fall in sterling which I think is unlikely.
I think unemployment will continue to edge down, if not at this year's rate.
I expect the £ to continue to do well against the Euro which is very likely to have a further debt related crisis at some point this year, possibly in Italy.
The current real wage growth and trends indicate that people are being far, far too pessimistic about their expectations in standard of living which will rise relatively strongly, certainly compared with the years since 2008.

I think we will see growth of around 2.5% in the year ahead and that Osborne will just fall short of his deficit reduction targets as some of the "found" £27bn proves to be ephemeral. Overall, a reasonably good year although I fear that the balance of payments will continue to disappoint as consumption rises more rapidly here than in Europe.

You are certainly optimistic David.

kle4 said:

Dair said:

HurstLlama said:

You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.

In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.

When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.

England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.

Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.

Of course the truth matters.

It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".

Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.

Dair said:

HurstLlama said:

You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.

In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.

When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.

England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.

It has more meaning as a country than Scotland. After all, for most of your history, every time you ended up in a fight with the English half your own people sided with your enemy. Scotland is basically a suburb of northern England.

I wouldnt mess with them. http://www.itv.com/news/2015-12-29/motorcycle-clubs-join-police-patrols-as-looters-target-flood-victims-raiding-homes-and-businesses/

Callous thieves are targeting the victims of flooding which has struck homes and businesses in the north of England, looting shops and stealing items salvaged from houses, it has emerged.

Motorcycle clubs have now volunteered to help police carry out patrols.

Pulpstar said:

JBriskin said:

Pulpstar said:

ZERO chance of Trump becoming POTUS in 2016.

Bold - isn't he still beating Clinton in the head to heads ?

What's gonna go wrong for him ?

The inauguration is planned in 2017 for starters...

If I win my cricket bet I might stick some quids on that nice Dr guy - maybees the US is like - Once you go black you don't go back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

taffys said:

What did the pollsters get wrong in 1347?

Nobody predicted the Peasants' Revolt apparently. Watt Tyler was dismissed as a nobody.

If there is a Peasant's Revolt in 2016, it will only be in Jeremy Corbyn's head....

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

HurstLlama said:

You are welcome Miss. P.. Of course if you want to understand how England became the England we know and love (not to mention some juicy scandal, sex, intrigue and murder that make the Game of Thrones look tame) then forget the ancients (all foreigners, anyway) and look to English Medieval history.

In fact for anyone interested in how England became England and why our landscape looks like it does I would strongly recommend Peter Ackroyd's Foundation (available on Kindle at a very reasonable price). In this book Ackroyd goes back to pre-history and traces civilisation in England from then until the end of the Medieval period. It is a grand tour of epic scale but he does some wonderful things like demonstrate how modern boundaries are mostly based on those that existed before the Romans and the continuity of English settlements and peoples over several thousand years.

When it comes to "accessible" history Ackroyd is, for my money, streets ahead of the Starkey's, Schuma's and the like. His Biography of London is a masterpiece.

England hasn't existed in any meaningful way for over 300 years. At best, since 1999 it exists as a nominal grouping for a set of sub-national localities but even then to consider England as an extant "thing" is pushing things.

Would it be possible, just once, for someone to mention English identity without this trolling? The truth, or not, does not even matter - it was an interesting discussion up to them. Such is life.

Of course the truth matters.

It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".

Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.

England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.

TheScreamingEagles said:

This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.

But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.

Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.

Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

And also for Man U and Chelsea fans

Not really, unless having to fork out £40 for a Leicester top counts as a "horrific year".

Pulpstar said:

ZERO chance of Trump becoming POTUS in 2016.

That'll be because the inauguration isn't until early 2017.

But I like what you did there.

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

Of course the truth matters.

It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".

Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.

England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.

Which is to say "not at all".

You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jonathan said:

If 2015 is anything to go by.

Imagine the worst outcome possible and then double it. Drink a cup of really strong tea and then think of something much worse than that.

Then you will be close, but some way off of what will actually happen.

Horrific year if you're an Lab/Lib Dem English rugby fan who works for an opinion pollster

And also for Man U and Chelsea fans

2015 will be remembered as the year the Premier League was swapped for a random number generator....

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

Of course the truth matters.

It is not trolling when it is factually correct. England did not exist between 1707 and 1999 other than the all too common mistake of using "England" to refer to any of The UK, Great Britain or, perhaps most importantly, "England and Wales".

Since 1999 it was recreated as a term for groups of local agencies, such as NHS England as the group of NHS boards within England. But that's the extent of it's relevance.

England did not exist as a political entity, but it certainly existed. I was as English in 1985 as I am now.

Which is to say "not at all".

You are not an English citizen, you are not governed by an English Parliament and you are not accountable to English Law. None of these things exist, in 1985 or today.

So what? I am still English, born in a country called England and living there too. Sorry.

Cyclefree said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This week is an example of how Cameron and the Tories should be on the ropes, over the floods, and their cutting of flood prevention measures.

But what are Labour discussing this week? Sacking the shadow cabinet members who Jez doesn't like for not voting the same way as him on a free vote.

Not just those who disagreed with him but sacking the MP who made probably the best political speech in the last year, whether or not you agreed with the way he voted, the only speech which set out in any sort of convincing way why there is a point to the Labour party. We may be talking about the one-eyed in the land of the blind. But still.

Still, Benn must have known of the likely reaction. The only wonder is why he bothered accepting a role in Corbyn's shadow team in the first place.

It was a free vote, which by most definitions and precident means that MPs speak and vote according to their own views, on either side of the debate.

Corbyn's subsequent interpretation of it meaning free to agree with him or be fired is more usually associated with a three-line whip than a free vote, especially with reference to Mr Corbyn's attitude towards the whips over the last 30 years.

I'm sure Benn didn't expect to be looking at the sack for a very eloquent and well delivered speech.