Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Night hawks is now open

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited August 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Night hawks is now open

Why not relax, and converse into the night on the day’s events in PB NightHawks.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Link 1

    The Tories have no members. They will be over taken by UKIP by 2016/2017 on the current trends.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,300
    Good moaning!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    edited August 2013
    IOS said:

    Link 1

    The Tories have no members. They will be over taken by UKIP by 2016/2017 on the current trends.

    If they have no members surely UKIP would have already overtaken them?

    How many years until everyone in the UK is a UKIP member, given current trends? ;-)
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    I love the links, an insight into stories that TSE have been interested in. A day in the life of an e-Tory!
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    PB Tories who are actually members of the political party they claim to support get it


    “Otherwise the numbers will not be there on the ground to do what needs to be done. We have worked hard over many elections and want to see the party win again in the future. But dwindling numbers means the chances of mobilising the activists to secure such a victory are diminishing.

    “A general cannot win a war without experienced troops on the ground.”
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Re 13, 14:

    If you’re in a hurry, we’ll cut to the chase here – the conclusion of all the available evidence is that Nate Silver’s core assertion is complete rubbish.

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/tendentious-tendencies/
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    FPT

    carl said:
    "It does seem strange that, after all their talk of re-balancing the economy, the Tory economic strategy has come down to letting finance and borrowing rip and trying to inflate an asset / consumer bubble.

    Did Cameron and Osborne learn nothing at all from the financial crisis and the economic / deficit problems it caused?"

    I thought it was a global financial crisis that started in America? That it was definitely not caused by Labour's policies, and that Gordo saved the world?

    But now you tell us that the current government could cause a repeat, by making the same mistakes...

    It's hard to keep up with the left sometimes when you run round and round in circles like this. Doesn't it make you dizzy?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013
    RobD said:

    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
    IIRC if you take the declared income from members for Tories and divide it by the membership fee - it comes out at about 130k. That assumes everyone pays the standard rate of course
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    FPT
    What is it about lefties that makes so many of their male posters on here mysogynists?
    Day after day we see nasty attacks on Plato (and others), so why do they feel so threatened by females?

    Guys it is 2013 not 1913. I wonder if they had bad experiences with leftie females that has created such a nasty streak? Ever thought of therapy chaps?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Plato said:

    RobD said:

    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
    IIRC if you take the declared income from members for Tories and divide it by the membership fee - it comes out at about 130k. That assumes everyone pays the standard rate of course
    As you know that assumption is badly wrong. How do you think some people qualify to become member of the HoL ?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    JonnyJimmy said:

    FPT

    carl said:
    "It does seem strange that, after all their talk of re-balancing the economy, the Tory economic strategy has come down to letting finance and borrowing rip and trying to inflate an asset / consumer bubble.

    Did Cameron and Osborne learn nothing at all from the financial crisis and the economic / deficit problems it caused?"

    I thought it was a global financial crisis that started in America? That it was definitely not caused by Labour's policies, and that Gordo saved the world?

    But now you tell us that the current government could cause a repeat, by making the same mistakes...

    It's hard to keep up with the left sometimes when you run round and round in circles like this. Doesn't it make you dizzy?

    I didn't say anything of the sort. I hate the way the last Government deregulated, inflated asset / consumer bubbles, put their faith in finance and consumer borrowing. It's what ultimately made the crash and deficit so bad in the UK.

    I just think it's a crying shame that Cameron and Osborne are doing exactly the same.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Surbiton

    It is also wrong as it doesn't account for those that leave half way through the year. Or indeed if people pay to much as they often do.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    FPT
    What is it about lefties that makes so many of their male posters on here mysogynists?
    Day after day we see nasty attacks on Plato (and others), so why do they feel so threatened by females?

    Guys it is 2013 not 1913. I wonder if they had bad experiences with leftie females that has created such a nasty streak? Ever thought of therapy chaps?

    I take it as a badge of honour to be abused by sad Lefties who make snidey personal remarks. I assume that because I ignore them - it makes their desire for attention even greater. Perhaps they should hang out at Ask.fm instead and troll themselves.

    I suspect that at heart they hate me because I was a Labourite who switched to the Tories. Traitor that I am.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited August 2013
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    FPT
    What is it about lefties that makes so many of their male posters on here mysogynists?
    Day after day we see nasty attacks on Plato (and others), so why do they feel so threatened by females?

    Guys it is 2013 not 1913. I wonder if they had bad experiences with leftie females that has created such a nasty streak? Ever thought of therapy chaps?

    Why should we give Plato more benefit of the doubt than other male PBTories ? WE, after all, believe in equality.

    And, believe me, Plato can handle it ! She gives as good as she gets.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Tim

    He is also taken the Tories into more debt as a party than Labour. When he took over as leader Labour were £30 million in debt.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    IOS said:

    Tim

    He is also taken the Tories into more debt as a party than Labour. When he took over as leader Labour were £30 million in debt.

    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    carl said:



    I didn't say anything of the sort. I hate the way the last Government deregulated, inflated asset / consumer bubbles, put their faith in finance and consumer borrowing. It's what ultimately made the crash and deficit so bad in the UK.

    I just think it's a crying shame that Cameron and Osborne are doing exactly the same.

    So you do think that the last Labour government's policies caused our financial problems?

    Hoo-effing-ray, one of you gets it at last! ✌
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    FPT
    What is it about lefties that makes so many of their male posters on here mysogynists?
    Day after day we see nasty attacks on Plato (and others), so why do they feel so threatened by females?

    Guys it is 2013 not 1913. I wonder if they had bad experiences with leftie females that has created such a nasty streak? Ever thought of therapy chaps?

    Does anyone really have an issue with Plato being female, or are you tilting at strawmen? I certainly haven't seen it on PB. I personally have no idea about Plato's gender, I just have to take people's word for it.

    All I know is that Plato is a textbook troll.

    I suppose it's not a terrible thing, all sites have them, it makes life livelier for those so inclined.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Also these attacks were just people quoting what she said.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Blimey - Mary Riddel is off the reservation

    "With the leader and the shadow chancellor away on holiday, Labour’s prolonged roosting session, punctuated by faint clucking, gave rise to the accusation that the party – if you will forgive the horrible pun – is displaying all the characteristics of an Edless chicken. While a summer lull was bound to elicit murmurings from malcontents, senior figures loyal to Ed Miliband are also voicing serious concerns..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10240861/Friends-and-foes-are-wondering-ifMr-Miliband-has-lost-the-plot.html
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    JonnyJimmy said:

    carl said:



    I didn't say anything of the sort. I hate the way the last Government deregulated, inflated asset / consumer bubbles, put their faith in finance and consumer borrowing. It's what ultimately made the crash and deficit so bad in the UK.

    I just think it's a crying shame that Cameron and Osborne are doing exactly the same.

    So you do think that the last Labour government's policies caused our financial problems?

    Hoo-effing-ray, one of you gets it at last! ✌
    "Caused"? Not entirely. It did happen the world over, there's no two ways about that.

    "Exacerbated"? Definitely.

    Question now is who has learned the lessons from the crisis. The Tories certainly haven't, as they are repeating the finance / deregulation / asset bubble mistakes that led to our deficit. Jury is out on Labour.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Plato said:

    Blimey - Mary Riddel is off the reservation

    "With the leader and the shadow chancellor away on holiday, Labour’s prolonged roosting session, punctuated by faint clucking, gave rise to the accusation that the party – if you will forgive the horrible pun – is displaying all the characteristics of an Edless chicken. While a summer lull was bound to elicit murmurings from malcontents, senior figures loyal to Ed Miliband are also voicing serious concerns..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10240861/Friends-and-foes-are-wondering-ifMr-Miliband-has-lost-the-plot.html

    "Edless chicken"

    LOL
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    edited August 2013
    One has to hope that this evening's ranting by those on the left represents the start of Ed's fightback after his hols. Lol. They are preparing us for another do or die speech without nouns or verbs I guess.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    IOS said:

    Also these attacks were just people quoting what she said.


    FPT

    "IOS Posts: 346
    7:35PM
    Plato - Are you really that dense. Try to look at the substance of my argument. And as for those two signings I would hardly call them galatico's.

    The Tories last time ran the second worst general election campaign in 20 years by any major party."

    I see no quotes.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    It was more than 13 years of profligacy by the banks and others who inflated an asset bubble that caused the deficit. Profligacy that is unfortunately being repeated by the Tories.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Next said:

    Plato said:

    Blimey - Mary Riddel is off the reservation

    "With the leader and the shadow chancellor away on holiday, Labour’s prolonged roosting session, punctuated by faint clucking, gave rise to the accusation that the party – if you will forgive the horrible pun – is displaying all the characteristics of an Edless chicken. While a summer lull was bound to elicit murmurings from malcontents, senior figures loyal to Ed Miliband are also voicing serious concerns..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10240861/Friends-and-foes-are-wondering-ifMr-Miliband-has-lost-the-plot.html

    "Edless chicken"

    LOL
    I thought it was most original. She carries on in the same vein for several hundred words then says 'oh but he's really good' as a courtesy. When the likes of Mary are going off-piste - EdM does have a problem, she loves Labour like Nile Gardner hates Obama.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Plato said:

    RobD said:

    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
    IIRC if you take the declared income from members for Tories and divide it by the membership fee - it comes out at about 130k. That assumes everyone pays the standard rate of course
    As you know that assumption is badly wrong. How do you think some people qualify to become member of the HoL ?
    As you well know, the sale of honours is a criminal offence.

    Please back this insinuation up with a link.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013
    felix said:

    One has to hope that this evening's ranting by those on the left represents the start of Ed's fightback after his hols. Lol. They are preparing us for another do or die speech without nouns or verbs I guess.

    This is.

    The speech of.

    My Life.

    And.

    People up and down the country.

    Have told me.

    < insert cliche >

    The reality is.

    That I have nothing.

    To say.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    edited August 2013
    .
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    carl said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    It was more than 13 years of profligacy by the banks and others who inflated an asset bubble that caused the deficit. Profligacy that is unfortunately being repeated by the Tories.
    That was largely Greenspan and his acolytes.

    The banks reacted to depressed yields and the need to generate a return on capital. The regulatory system Labour introduced was badly designed and failed to provide sufficient oversight.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good evening, everyone.

    Mr. IOS: maths*, not math.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Plato said:

    felix said:

    One has to hope that this evening's ranting by those on the left represents the start of Ed's fightback after his hols. Lol. They are preparing us for another do or die speech without nouns or verbs I guess.

    This is.

    The speech of.

    My Life.

    And.

    People up and down the country.

    Have told me.

    < insert cliche >

    The reality is.

    That I have nothing.

    To say.
    I count 4 verbs too many ;-)
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Plato said:

    RobD said:

    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
    IIRC if you take the declared income from members for Tories and divide it by the membership fee - it comes out at about 130k. That assumes everyone pays the standard rate of course
    As you know that assumption is badly wrong. How do you think some people qualify to become member of the HoL ?
    As you well know, the sale of honours is a criminal offence.

    Please back this insinuation up with a link.
    I'll give you a link:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    tim said:

    @TimMontgomerie: What are Conservatives hiding? @PaulGoodmanCH in tmrw's @TheTimes on Tory failure to publish membership numbers http://t.co/8nemj92ETJ

    They are hiding a sub 100k membership I'd guess

    Any bets it could be less than 90k ?
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Charles said:

    carl said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    It was more than 13 years of profligacy by the banks and others who inflated an asset bubble that caused the deficit. Profligacy that is unfortunately being repeated by the Tories.
    That was largely Greenspan and his acolytes.

    The banks reacted to depressed yields and the need to generate a return on capital. The regulatory system Labour introduced was badly designed and failed to provide sufficient oversight.
    Indeed it was. But more than that, their policy (now being followed by Cameron and Osborne) of inflating asset bubbles based on deregulated finance, and letting the good times roll, was fundamentally insane. As the crash and resulting deficit demonstrated.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Next said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Plato said:

    RobD said:

    IOS said:

    Rob D

    UKIP 40,000
    Con 90, 000 - 100,000

    UKIP have gained around 14k I think this year. The Tories have lost over 30k in two years.


    Do the math!

    So the Tories don't have no members, glad we cleared that one up ;-)
    IIRC if you take the declared income from members for Tories and divide it by the membership fee - it comes out at about 130k. That assumes everyone pays the standard rate of course
    As you know that assumption is badly wrong. How do you think some people qualify to become member of the HoL ?
    As you well know, the sale of honours is a criminal offence.

    Please back this insinuation up with a link.
    I'll give you a link:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_Honours
    (a) I don't recall any Tory fixers being arrested

    (b) Surby was suggesting it is ongoing
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Tim

    Cameron should try and get ahead of this issue and just release them now or it is all he will here about during conference season.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Plato said:

    Blimey - Mary Riddel is off the reservation

    "With the leader and the shadow chancellor away on holiday, Labour’s prolonged roosting session, punctuated by faint clucking, gave rise to the accusation that the party – if you will forgive the horrible pun – is displaying all the characteristics of an Edless chicken. While a summer lull was bound to elicit murmurings from malcontents, senior figures loyal to Ed Miliband are also voicing serious concerns..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10240861/Friends-and-foes-are-wondering-ifMr-Miliband-has-lost-the-plot.html

    No wonder the comical Ali's of the left are out past dusk - if even Riddel is off message then they do have problems !
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,495
    Will there ever be an evening on PB when the word misogynist is not misspelled (or scattered about indiscriminately)?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Interesting. I wonder if he has any insider info. A few people have commented that the real figure may be under 90k.


    Patrick O'Flynn ‏@oflynnexpress 2m

    @PaulGoodmanCH @TimMontgomerie @thetimes @ConHome gosh, so now one UKIP member for every three Tory members and trend all going one way
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    carl said:

    Charles said:

    carl said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    It was more than 13 years of profligacy by the banks and others who inflated an asset bubble that caused the deficit. Profligacy that is unfortunately being repeated by the Tories.
    That was largely Greenspan and his acolytes.

    The banks reacted to depressed yields and the need to generate a return on capital. The regulatory system Labour introduced was badly designed and failed to provide sufficient oversight.
    Indeed it was. But more than that, their policy (now being followed by Cameron and Osborne) of inflating asset bubbles based on deregulated finance, and letting the good times roll, was fundamentally insane. As the crash and resulting deficit demonstrated.
    I think Cameron has the choice of two evils.

    Keep interest rates low and you risk asset bubbles and yield-seeking

    Put interest rates up and you risk defaults, reposessions, capital losses at the banks and plunging the economy back into recession.

    Given the choices I think he is following the right strategy: absorbing risk (and mitigating it with a tighter fiscal policy) while dodging the immediate problem.

    I guess we should thank the government who left them such a golden economic legacy, right?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    I would be incredible if Cameron had reduced number to under 90k. Just how bad is it.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    IOS said:



    Cameron should try and get ahead of this issue

    Why? I thought this Westminster stuff doesnt ever matter?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    Question: How many years did Labour run a surplus in 13 years and how many did the Tories do in 18 years ?

    Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.

    What deficit did Osborne predict in June 2010 for 2013-14 ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,300
    Looks like the majority of posts in this thread have been by the PB Edless Chickens :)
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Neil.

    Because he needs to try and actually rebuild his party. And that means admitting what you figures are and asking his members what they think he can do to get them back.

    If a public limited company didn't issue these sorts of profit warnings it would be illegal!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2013
    Is it my imagination or has my post about Mark Wallace's article disappeared?

    Is quoting a mickey take from ConHome modded now? Weird. I recommend in that case that PBers Google Hastings and ConHome and Mark Wallace to find it.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    IOS said:

    I would be incredible if Cameron had reduced number to under 90k. Just how bad is it.

    IOS, Tim, thinks you are a bit sad, please stop fawning over him it's pathetic.
  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 666
    Plato said:

    Is it my imagination or has my post about Mark Wallace's article disappeared?

    Plato - For copyright reasons, can you not copy and paste entire articles from other sites.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Charles said:

    carl said:

    Charles said:

    carl said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    It was more than 13 years of profligacy by the banks and others who inflated an asset bubble that caused the deficit. Profligacy that is unfortunately being repeated by the Tories.
    That was largely Greenspan and his acolytes.

    The banks reacted to depressed yields and the need to generate a return on capital. The regulatory system Labour introduced was badly designed and failed to provide sufficient oversight.
    Indeed it was. But more than that, their policy (now being followed by Cameron and Osborne) of inflating asset bubbles based on deregulated finance, and letting the good times roll, was fundamentally insane. As the crash and resulting deficit demonstrated.
    I think Cameron has the choice of two evils.

    Keep interest rates low and you risk asset bubbles and yield-seeking

    Put interest rates up and you risk defaults, reposessions, capital losses at the banks and plunging the economy back into recession.

    Given the choices I think he is following the right strategy: absorbing risk (and mitigating it with a tighter fiscal policy) while dodging the immediate problem.

    I guess we should thank the government who left them such a golden economic legacy, right?
    Well, Cameron and Osborne inherited a growing economy. More than can be said for most of their time in office.

    Whether inflating an asset bubble via deregulated finance is the "right strategy" or not. I suppose time will tell, but recent history, when that approach sent most of the world into recession and deficit, suggests not.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Snip it then! There seems to be a fairly arbitrary rule here that makes complying with it impossible. Guidance would be helpful.
    PBModerator said:

    Plato said:

    Is it my imagination or has my post about Mark Wallace's article disappeared?

    Plato - For copyright reasons, can you not copy and paste entire articles from other sites.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    surbiton said:



    Question: How many years did Labour run a surplus in 13 years and how many did the Tories do in 18 years ?

    Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.

    What deficit did Osborne predict in June 2010 for 2013-14 ?

    How many years when Gordon wasn't sticking to Ken Clarke's spending plans did Labour run a surplus?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Yup looks like we have a Tory party that is closer to 90k

    Paul Goodman ‏@PaulGoodmanCH

    @oflynnexpress @TimMontgomerie My best guess would be slightly south of that: see tomorrow's @thetimes + @ConHome.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    surbiton said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    Question: How many years did Labour run a surplus in 13 years and how many did the Tories do in 18 years ?

    Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.

    What deficit did Osborne predict in June 2010 for 2013-14 ?
    Remember when Labour predicted £39 Bn of borrowing and then borrowed £178 Bn ?

    2009 - just out by a factor of 4 - £140 Bn extra.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Overall, the poll indicates that the Welsh public are more satisfied with the way the Welsh assembly is carrying out its work than the UK parliament.

    Respondents gave it an average rating of 5.6 out of 10, compared with 4.3 out of 10 for Westminster.

    Overall, 62% of respondents wanted to see increased powers for the assembly, including the 9% in favour of full independence, as against 24% favouring the current arrangements.

    Beaufort Research interviewed a representative sample of 2,009 members of the Welsh population aged 16 and above between 21 May and 12 June 2013.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23673014
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Looks like the majority of posts in this thread have been by the PB Edless Chickens :)

    ""There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!""

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    edited August 2013
    253,000 --------> 90k

    About a 65%? decrease? Dave is a party member genius.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    PBTories should also have some symapathy for us. We will after all have to fight the next election under the FPTP system, the campaign for which you financed and fought for so magnificently against your partners , the Liberal Democrats in the AV referendum. One or two of them were very annoyed, if I recall.

    But we will carry with us this handicap without any complaint. We know it is your chosen system. We will just have to live with it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    OT But wonderful - the article is a good as the headline.

    You've Been Lied to About Carrots Your Whole Life Because of Nazis

    You've probably heard the myth that eating lots of carrots will magically improve your vision. The bad news is that it's a total lie. The good news? It's one that helped the Allies defeat the Nazis. Here's the truth: Carrots are rich in beta carotene (Vitamin A), and thus, eating lots of carrots helps promote good eye health. That's a different thing entirely from vision; pumping yourself full of Vitamin A doesn't bring you any closer to 20/20 than doing push-ups all day would.

    So why do we think carrots help us see better? Smithsonian Magazine reports the theory of John Stolarczyk, curator of the World Carrot Museum (Yes! It exists). According to Stolarczyk, the myth began during World War II, when the Nazis were bombing the bejeezus out of London at night. Then, seemingly out of no where, the British Royal Air Force started shooting down more Nazi planes. How did they do it? With the help of a new radar that the RAF, of course, did not want anybody to know about. Smithsonian explains:

    The Royal Air Force were able to repel the German fighters in part because of the development of a new, secret radar technology. The on-board Airborne Interception Radar (AI), first used by the RAF in 1939, had the ability to pinpoint enemy bombers before they reached the English Channel. But to keep that under wraps, according to Stolarczyk’s research pulled from the files of the Imperial War Museum, the Mass Observation Archive, and the UK National Archives, the Ministry provided another reason for their success: carrots..." http://gizmodo.com/youve-been-lied-to-about-carrots-your-whole-life-becau-1124868510
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Plato, why are you doing the night shift ? Is Fitalass on holiday ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,362
    Plato said:

    OT But wonderful - the article is a good as the headline.

    You've Been Lied to About Carrots Your Whole Life Because of Nazis

    You've probably heard the myth that eating lots of carrots will magically improve your vision. The bad news is that it's a total lie. The good news? It's one that helped the Allies defeat the Nazis. Here's the truth: Carrots are rich in beta carotene (Vitamin A), and thus, eating lots of carrots helps promote good eye health. That's a different thing entirely from vision; pumping yourself full of Vitamin A doesn't bring you any closer to 20/20 than doing push-ups all day would.

    So why do we think carrots help us see better? Smithsonian Magazine reports the theory of John Stolarczyk, curator of the World Carrot Museum (Yes! It exists). According to Stolarczyk, the myth began during World War II, when the Nazis were bombing the bejeezus out of London at night. Then, seemingly out of no where, the British Royal Air Force started shooting down more Nazi planes. How did they do it? With the help of a new radar that the RAF, of course, did not want anybody to know about. Smithsonian explains:

    The Royal Air Force were able to repel the German fighters in part because of the development of a new, secret radar technology. The on-board Airborne Interception Radar (AI), first used by the RAF in 1939, had the ability to pinpoint enemy bombers before they reached the English Channel. But to keep that under wraps, according to Stolarczyk’s research pulled from the files of the Imperial War Museum, the Mass Observation Archive, and the UK National Archives, the Ministry provided another reason for their success: carrots..." http://gizmodo.com/youve-been-lied-to-about-carrots-your-whole-life-becau-1124868510

    An old story, that shamefully does not mention John 'Cat's Eyes' Cunningham:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cunningham_(RAF_officer)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2146171.stm
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    If the Tories are losing over 1000 members a month. And UKIP are gaining around the same amount we could be in the position where the membership figures are

    Tories: 74k
    UKIP: 61k


    At the time of the 2015 general election. Good luck getting UKIP down to 5% with those figures...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Miss Plato, I remember hearing about that a little while ago.

    Funny how certain things hang around. Apparently, public toilets in France were nicknamed something like Vespasiennes, after the emperor who charged for using public facilities in 1st century (AD) Rome.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    IOS said:

    If the Tories are losing over 1000 members a month. And UKIP are gaining around the same amount we could be in the position where the membership figures are

    Tories: 74k
    UKIP: 61k


    At the time of the 2015 general election. Good luck getting UKIP down to 5% with those figures...

    Why do the kippers hate the Tories so much ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    carl said:



    Well, Cameron and Osborne inherited a growing economy. More than can be said for most of their time in office.

    Whether inflating an asset bubble via deregulated finance is the "right strategy" or not. I suppose time will tell, but recent history, when that approach sent most of the world into recession and deficit, suggests not.

    Growth generated by sucking forward capex - effectively a Ponzi scheme. Additionally, government debt was growing at a faster rate - not a sustainable model.

    Reducing the deficit as much as they have, while still not tipping the country back into recession is a decent achievement.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Yougov ?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IOS said:

    If the Tories are losing over 1000 members a month. And UKIP are gaining around the same amount we could be in the position where the membership figures are

    Tories: 74k
    UKIP: 61k


    At the time of the 2015 general election. Good luck getting UKIP down to 5% with those figures...

    Extrapolation is the worst way to build forecasts. You are a numpty.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    surbiton said:

    IOS said:

    Tim

    He is also taken the Tories into more debt as a party than Labour. When he took over as leader Labour were £30 million in debt.

    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
    "Where ignorance is bliss,
    Let Surby advise"

    Public Sector Net Debt at end fiscal year 2009-10 as % of GDP = 151.7%
    Public Sector Net Debt at end fiscal year 2012-13 as % of GDP = 138.2%

    Source: ONS, June 2013 Public Sector Finances Bulletin.

    Not much need to be said really.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AveryLP said:

    surbiton said:

    IOS said:

    Tim

    He is also taken the Tories into more debt as a party than Labour. When he took over as leader Labour were £30 million in debt.

    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.
    "Where ignorance is bliss,
    Let Surby advise"

    Public Sector Net Debt at end fiscal year 2009-10 as % of GDP = 151.7%
    Public Sector Net Debt at end fiscal year 2012-13 as % of GDP = 138.2%

    Source: ONS, June 2013 Public Sector Finances Bulletin.

    Not much need to be said really.

    Don't forget the unfunded pension liabilities and the PFI obligations.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul
    After @steverichards14 & @MaryRiddell, how long before @pollytoynbee changes her mind on the wrong Miliband?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Charles.

    You are of course right it is difficult to predict. But we can say the Tory membership is nose diving and UKIP is increase a significant amount.

    What will it be like in 2 years time. I don't know. But I doubt the Tories are going to reverse that trend. Especially when they have a leader that is too weak to admit to his membership figures.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Don't worry Tories. You may be witnessing your party membership collapse but you have Scott_P here to repost twitter.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    surbiton said:


    Why do the kippers hate the Tories so much ?

    A quick glance at the comments under any DT blog will reveal that it's because they're exactly the same as Labour, apparently...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IOS said:

    Charles.

    You are of course right it is difficult to predict. But we can say the Tory membership is nose diving and UKIP is increase a significant amount.

    What will it be like in 2 years time. I don't know. But I doubt the Tories are going to reverse that trend. Especially when they have a leader that is too weak to admit to his membership figures.

    I suspect Cameron hasn't given it a moments thought: you are assuming it is weakness.

    Don't forget that people join the *constituency* parties, not the central party. The constituencies are very jealous about sharing membership data (and may even be prevented by data protection).

    I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a accurate national record of membership (e.g. when I voted for Cameron I was sent my ballot by my local association not nationally).

    They tried to reform it back in Major's day but the local associations fought so hard that they gave up
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Charles

    Firstly you have spent several million pounds building a database that's main function is to centralise you membership! Don't give me that data protection crap.

    And if Cameron really hasn't given it a moments thought then I am going to laugh myself silly. Some leader if he doesn't even care about his membership.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    IOS said:

    Don't worry Tories. You may be witnessing your party membership collapse but you have Scott_P here to repost twitter.

    Don't worry Labour. You may have a leader less electable than Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock, but at least you have IOS ridiculously extrapolating Tory/UKIP membership numbers.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    And yet Dave is more popular with Tory voters than Ed Milliband is with Labour ones.

    We may have a second rate govt, but the opposition is not even third rate; hence they are getting raked by chainshot and are nearly dismasted.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy
    IOS said:

    Charles.

    You are of course right it is difficult to predict. But we can say the Tory membership is nose diving and UKIP is increase a significant amount.

    What will it be like in 2 years time. I don't know. But I doubt the Tories are going to reverse that trend. Especially when they have a leader that is too weak to admit to his membership figures.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013
    surbiton said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    ...

    Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.

    ...
    "Where ignorance is bliss,
    Let Surby advise"

    Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5%
    UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%

    Only out by over 100% Surby!
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    Charles said:

    carl said:



    Well, Cameron and Osborne inherited a growing economy. More than can be said for most of their time in office.

    Whether inflating an asset bubble via deregulated finance is the "right strategy" or not. I suppose time will tell, but recent history, when that approach sent most of the world into recession and deficit, suggests not.

    Growth generated by sucking forward capex - effectively a Ponzi scheme. Additionally, government debt was growing at a faster rate - not a sustainable model.

    Reducing the deficit as much as they have, while still not tipping the country back into recession is a decent achievement.
    Strange measure of achievement. Most of Labour's time in office was characterised by VERY low Govt debt and deficit, and powering economic growth, until the financial crisis hit.

    The crisis that was caused by the very same finance bubble policies that Cameron and Osborne are now wedded to.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Jonny

    Well what evidence do you have to say that the trend will stop. Cameron has lost 160,000 members! I mean FFS why the hell should this suddenly stop.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    JonnyJimmy said:

    IOS said:

    Don't worry Tories. You may be witnessing your party membership collapse but you have Scott_P here to repost twitter.

    Don't worry Labour. You may have a leader less electable than Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock, but at least you have IOS ridiculously extrapolating Tory/UKIP membership numbers.

    Chilon clearly thinks the next GE is a Shoo In for Ed.

    Unlike all the Labour MPs clucking away in the media.

    Who to believe?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    As a rule of thumb, I understand that quoting more than 10% of an article requires permission of the copywright holder. Is this correct.

    Presumably quoting single sentances is permitted, otherwise twitter would disappear, and that would be a tragedy. innocent face ;-)
    SeanT said:

    Plato said:

    Is it my imagination or has my post about Mark Wallace's article disappeared?

    Is quoting a mickey take from ConHome modded now? Weird. I recommend in that case that PBers Google Hastings and ConHome and Mark Wallace to find it.

    It's pretty easy. Don't cut and paste entire articles, or the majority thereof. Writers - like me - depend on paying customers to feed our kids, and what you do prevents us doing this. Stop.

    (This of course does not apply to the Guardian, which remains happy to pay its hacks nothing and give away its stuff for free, mainly because it is staffed by rich trustafarians who don't need an income)
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    IOS said:

    Charles.

    You are of course right it is difficult to predict.

    He didn't say that anything is difficult to predict, he said you are a numpty. Ill mannered perhaps, but difficult to disagree.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Surbiton

    You have used the words: PB Tories.

    Please name them so that we can be precise. When asked the same question both carl and tim bottled it and ran away. Will you do likewise?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    The Watcher

    I think regardless of the next election the Tories haven't got a party that's left. How Cameron has been allowed to lose over 160,000 members I will never ever know.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited August 2013
    @ Carl

    Well, Cameron and Osborne inherited a growing economy. More than can be said for most of their time in office.

    Whether inflating an asset bubble via deregulated finance is the "right strategy" or not. I suppose time will tell, but recent history, when that approach sent most of the world into recession and deficit, suggests not.





    Hmm if growth it was, it was only because we were at the tail end of Gordon's false debt fuelled strategy which was utterly unsustainable, bust the country and for which we will all be paying for a generation. Never mind the off the books PFIs, rail tracks et al, huge public sector pension entitlements, and a wrecked private sector pension system to fan the flames in the future. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a whelk stall never mind a country of 63m.

    In that context the present lot have made a reasonable fist of a seriously crap hand they were dealt thus far - but but but I have serious concerns that things like the house deposit underwriting scheme ( forget its name ) are a Tory mini version of the same ie a debt fuelled boomlet to end ooh early in May 2015 I'd say, for which we will have to pay as surely as for Gordon's sins. Maybe we should prepare a second seafood emporium?

    I wish to be treated like an adult by our politicians: we're broke, will be for a long time relatively and the world is getting ever more competitive. It's not hopeless, but is is if we keep playing bloody ostriches.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited August 2013
    @Carl

    Strange measure of achievement. Most of Labour's time in office was characterised by VERY low Govt debt and deficit, and powering economic growth, until the financial crisis hit.

    The crisis that was caused by the very same finance bubble policies that Cameron and Osborne are now wedded to.

    The figures don't stack up, Carl.

    Labour's first term (1997-2001) was definitely a paragon of prudent fiscal continence. But after the 2001 election, Blair let Mrs Rochester out of the attic. The consequences were disastrous (12% real terms increase in borrowing in first year of term) and not yet a thought for the impending global financial crisis in Brown's mind. 
    Public Sector Aggregates: Total Managed Expenditure             
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Year     Nominal   Change |  Real      Change | GDP Ratio Change
             £ bn        %    |  £ bn        %    |    %        %   
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs Rochester constrained                                       

    1997-98  322.0 ˄   1.96%  |  437.0 ˄  -0.05%  |  38.0 ˅  -3.80% 
    1998-99  330.9 ˄   2.76%  |  439.9 ˄   0.66%  |  37.0 ˅  -2.63% 
    1999-00  342.9 ˄   3.63%  |  447.9 ˄   1.82%  |  36.3 ˅  -1.89% 
    2000-01  341.5 ˄  -0.41%  |  443.7 ˄  -0.94%  |  34.6 ˅  -4.68% 
                              |                   |                 
    1997-2001      ˄   7.53%  |        ˄   1.46%  |       ˅ -14.16% 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Mrs Rochester released from attic                               

    2001-02  389.2 ˄  13.97%  |  496.1 ˄  11.81%  |  37.8 ˄   9.25% 
    2002-03  421.2 ˄   8.22%  |  523.8 ˄   5.58%  |  38.8 ˄   2.65% 
    2003-04  455.5 ˄   8.14%  |  554.2 ˄   5.80%  |  39.5 ˄   1.80% 
    2004-05  492.4 ˄   8.10%  |  582.0 ˄   5.02%  |  40.5 ˄   2.53% 

    2002-05        ˄  30.65%  |        ˄  23.76%  |       ˄  14.57% 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    edited August 2013
    AveryLP said:

    surbiton said:

    JonnyJimmy said:

    surbiton said:


    To be fair, they are doing to their party what they are doing to the country. After all, they have borrowed more in less than 3 years than Labour managed to do in 13.

    You have heard of this thing called the deficit, right? The one caused by 13 years of profligacy, and the interest that needs to be paid on that?
    ...

    Don't forget the debt to GDP ratio was lower than Germany's even in May 2010. It is your failure to have growth which has caused the continuing deficit.

    ...
    "Where ignorance is bliss,
    Let Surby advise"

    Germany: Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 74.5%
    UK Government Debt to GDP ratio 2010 = 151.7%

    Only out by over 100% Surby!
    Err, do you have a source for that Avery? Because according to the ONS current debt/GDP is 75%, and I hardly think it has halved in the past 3 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    IOS said:

    The Watcher

    I think regardless of the next election the Tories haven't got a party that's left. How Cameron has been allowed to lose over 160,000 members I will never ever know.

    So that's what Ed's written on his blank sheet of paper, in green crayon.

    I enjoyed your tale of the nurse, visiting homes to spread the message, earlier.

    Sadly, her evening takes a turn for the worst when the unfortunate doorstep audience bring up the uncomfortable topic of the Killing Fields of Stafford.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    For the past 3 years Tim and Co have been deriding the government for failing to produce growth, cutting too far too fast etc. We were told by these wise people that growth is everything and more must be done to produce growth.Now we have growth established and in my view strong sustained growth (and at a time of reduced public spending), its not mentioned anymore. Instead its Osborne's bubble! You couldn't make it up
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    carl said:

    Most of Labour's time in office was characterised by VERY low Govt debt and deficit, and powering economic growth, until the financial crisis hit.

    Which of the years from this graph, not including the ones where Labour were following Ken Clarke's spending plans, is that true for?

    (I'm rather amused that you are instructed you can "embiggen" the graph by clicking on it. "Embiggen" is a made up word, coined by Lisa Simpson; a perfectly cromulent word!)
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Whoops, forgot the link http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    edited August 2013
    SeanT

    What are you on about. Labour has 190,000 members. The scheme that enrolled people lasted about a year has now been scrapped and brought in no more than a couple of hundred.

    As pointed out by the Ashcroft poll Labour could have almost a million members who sign up voluntarily.

    So I would suggest there are about 193,000 people who would voluntary and independently become members now. And probably over a 1,000,000 if we got our act together.
  • carlcarl Posts: 750
    edited August 2013
    welshowl said:


    Well, Cameron and Osborne inherited a growing economy. More than can be said for most of their time in office.

    Whether inflating an asset bubble via deregulated finance is the "right strategy" or not. I suppose time will tell, but recent history, when that approach sent most of the world into recession and deficit, suggests not.





    Hmm if growth it was, it was only because we were at the tail end of Gordon's false debt fuelled strategy which was utterly unsustainable, bust the country and for which we will all be paying for a generation. Never mind the off the books PFIs, rail tracks et al, huge public sector pension entitlements, and a wrecked private sector pension system to fan the flames in the future. I wouldn't have put him in charge of a whelk stall never mind a country of 63m.

    In that context the present lot have made a reasonable fist of a seriously crap hand they were dealt thus far - but but but I have serious concerns that things like the house deposit underwriting scheme ( forget its name ) are a Tory mini version of the same ie a debt fuelled boomlet to end ooh early in May 2015 I'd say, for which we will have to pay as surely as for Gordon's sins. Maybe we should prepare a second seafood emporium?

    I wish to be treated like an adult by our politicians: we're broke, will be for a long time relatively and the world is getting ever more competitive. It's not hopeless, but is is if we keep playing bloody ostriches.


    Some truth in that lot.

    In Gordon and Tony's defence, they had no way to know that the bankers were running a big ponzi scheme that would send the world into terrible recession and Governments into horrific deficit. At least they spent some proceeds wisely, we certainly got better schools and hospitals etc.

    In David and George's defence, they have to get growth, somehow, even if it's taking a leaf out of the previous Govt's "bubble and borrow, the bankers will look after us" book. At least some jobs are being created, real livelihoods being sustained for the time being, that might not otherwise.

  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    'Pleasuredome' TSE? Two Tribes surely?

    What's the Mail fp legacy story?

    Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:

    https://twitter.com/Lewes_cfc/status/367394472125935616/photo/1
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    IOS said:

    SeanT

    So I would suggest there are about 193,000 people who would voluntary and independently become members now. And probably over a 1,000,000 if we got our act together.

    *Chortle*
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,021
    Carola said:

    'Pleasuredome' TSE? Two Tribes surely?

    What's the Mail fp legacy story?

    Anyway, the Bowie exhibition live screening was a bit pants, especially if you've seen the exhibition. But then you can't get too much Bowie... though I did miss the first Mighty Rooks home game. Still, another home Clash on Saturday:

    https://twitter.com/Lewes_cfc/status/367394472125935616/photo/1

    I used Two Tribes in link 16, to use it twice would have invoked the ire of the tautology club.

    Remember, the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025