Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LD battle is a lot tighter than the current betting sugges

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LD battle is a lot tighter than the current betting suggests

If you want to base a predictions on the Betfair market then Jo Swinson, the 39 year old ex Lib Dem minister in the Coalition, is heading for a clear victory in the Lib Dem leadership contest. Her opponent, former cabinet minister Ed Davey, is currently at just a 17% chance on the betting exchange with Swinson on an 83% one.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 1,021
    1st like Jo?

    I don't know. As it happens a few hours before this thread I did cast my vote for Jo. Like Mike says, I have no firm views either way. Both Ed and Jo would make good leaders.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567
    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453
    edited July 2

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    edited July 2

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    Does that invalidate Sanders' point about wealth inequality, or underline it? Surely the latter.

    As an aside, this seems to come from the 2017 Forbes rich list, which showed the top 400 Americans own more than Britain's GDP. (Apples and oranges? Perhaps.)
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/
    https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BILLIONAIRE-BONANZA-2017-Embargoed.pdf
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,749
    Early morning all :)

    I'm ill so you have to put up with my meaningless burblings at this ungodly hour.

    The Jo and Ed show reminds me of the Futurama episode where the Presidential election was between John Jackson and Jack Johnson. They are so similar it's impossible to get too excited. Both agree on the vast majority of issues and neither would represent a wholly radical shift in the LD position.

    It's a question of emphasis - Davey plays the environment card hard and he has a track record which resonates strongly within the Party and especially with the activists who can see what he accomplished in SW London winning K&S twice in unlikely circumstances.

    Swinson is the more engaging and the more likely, it seems, to appeal beyond the LD confines. That said, it was gratifying to hear both candidates talk to life beyond Brexit. The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU.

    The days of coalition are over - it's not so much equal distance as equal contempt but Parliamentary reality after the next GE may not allow such a stand-off view. No one will thank the Party for perpetuating paralysis via self indulgence. I could see the LDs voting against a McDonnell Budget - whether the beaten Conservatives would do the same I don't know, they have form for abstaining on these matters.

    That said, there may well be Labour legislation the LDs can support and it may be a case-by-case or bill-by-bill process. There seems no desire to prop up a Johnson minority administration but I don't think Johnson himself would operate well in that confined situation.

    I suspect, IF we come out of the EU on 31/10. the LDs will rapidly move to a rejoin position but I'd be cautious without knowing the full terms and conditions. As I said last night, it still seems plenty of people would rather eat dirt than use the Euro let alone come into Schengen and restore the SM. As for immigration, the Party is there with Boris on being broadly pro-immigration but it's another elephant in the room and as with the Euro there may not be that many votes in too liberal a line.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,393

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Tony Blair still thinks we need ID cards, or their electronic equivalent.

    governments should provide an electronic identity system and other digital infrastructure to support both teams across government and organisations beyond the public sector. In the internet era, governments should see software and data as an essential, enabling platform for others’ activity, with new security technologies now addressing previous concerns over identity systems.

    https://institute.global/insight/renewing-centre/transforming-government-21st-century

    There's something for Jo and Ed to think about.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Boris vs Hunt. Is it time to cash out? Perhaps being up all night does not help clear thinking but I'm finding it increasingly hard to follow the Conservative leadership contest as it descends into Alan Partridge territory with both men (or their "camps") pitching ever more extreme ideas to win over party members. Cut the Cabinet in half to save umpteen billion pounds (how much are civil servants paid?) being the latest.

    I'm green on both but maybe now is the time to take the money and run before one of them advocates monkey tennis.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    stodge said:

    Early morning all :)

    I'm ill so you have to put up with my meaningless burblings at this ungodly hour.

    The Jo and Ed show reminds me of the Futurama episode where the Presidential election was between John Jackson and Jack Johnson. They are so similar it's impossible to get too excited. Both agree on the vast majority of issues and neither would represent a wholly radical shift in the LD position.

    It's a question of emphasis - Davey plays the environment card hard and he has a track record which resonates strongly within the Party and especially with the activists who can see what he accomplished in SW London winning K&S twice in unlikely circumstances.

    Swinson is the more engaging and the more likely, it seems, to appeal beyond the LD confines. That said, it was gratifying to hear both candidates talk to life beyond Brexit. The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU.

    The days of coalition are over - it's not so much equal distance as equal contempt but Parliamentary reality after the next GE may not allow such a stand-off view. No one will thank the Party for perpetuating paralysis via self indulgence. I could see the LDs voting against a McDonnell Budget - whether the beaten Conservatives would do the same I don't know, they have form for abstaining on these matters.

    That said, there may well be Labour legislation the LDs can support and it may be a case-by-case or bill-by-bill process. There seems no desire to prop up a Johnson minority administration but I don't think Johnson himself would operate well in that confined situation.

    I suspect, IF we come out of the EU on 31/10. the LDs will rapidly move to a rejoin position but I'd be cautious without knowing the full terms and conditions. As I said last night, it still seems plenty of people would rather eat dirt than use the Euro let alone come into Schengen and restore the SM. As for immigration, the Party is there with Boris on being broadly pro-immigration but it's another elephant in the room and as with the Euro there may not be that many votes in too liberal a line.

    If Labour can't get its budget through the House, the rest is moot, and if it can then it won't need the LibDems.
  • Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    edited July 2
    I agree with Mike that Ed is having the better campaign, coming across as more of a heavyweight politician prepared for whatever the future might throw at us, and I voted for him yesterday. Like Mike my perception from conversations is that it could be closer than the betting suggests. On internal party matters Shirley Williams is invariably on the wrong side, and I notice wryly that she is voting for Jo.

    On the other hand Jo’s leaflet mailed out to all members was significantly the better one, and LibDem members do like a good leaflet...

    I still think Jo will win, largely to break the duck on female leaders and pass that cap firmly over to Labour (which sadly is not a good reason for the choice). We need a charismatic and engaging leader - which unfortunately neither of them is (hence the growing pre-contest support for Layla) - and certainly someone who will get noticed. In the absence of such I sense a view that having a woman is seen as the next best thing, as the Tories return to choosing a man and Labour still appears some way off change.

    At the least the old parties (dying parties?) will have to be more careful about their usual stance of alternately ignoring and patronising the LibDems, with a young woman in charge. And we can hope that Jo will find it easier to build support with younger and female people who make up much of the target demographic.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    edited July 2

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They have both been asked on the media and of course said that if there is a leave vote on a specific proposition, that proposition needs to be implemented.

    Every party will then have the decision on how to play the aftermath, and that ultimately depends on public opinion on how the process goes and the extent of any damage. It would be foolish for any party to tie itself firmly to a course now, when the actual process of leaving still has years to run. Of all the parties the LibDems would remain the most in favour of close relationships with our EU neighbours and doubtless the first to focus in on the big concerns about life outside the EU, as and when any emerge.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 28,649
    Perhaps Jo Swinson would be more likely to win extra converts to the LDs, whereas Ed Davey is more of a shoring up the base candidate.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    Err, no he doesn't. I think their point was some people in the bottom 50% have negative assets not everybody in the bottom 50% has negative (or no assets)

    Maybe I've badly got the wrong end of this but surely then he would pick a higher percentage... if 50% own nothing then the bottom positive 20 or so would probably still not add up to those top 3...

    The tweet itself is badly worded as he implies the whole 50% has no assets (net) but if you click the article it actually says some of those 50% have no assets.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    AndyJS said:

    Perhaps Jo Swinson would be more likely to win extra converts to the LDs, whereas Ed Davey is more of a shoring up the base candidate.

    It seems to be playing a little that way, with Jo advocating a reaching out strategy to other parties and Ed arguing the LibDems should try and lead the way alone.

    The other dimension is that Jo is probably better if the LibDems stick at a smallish bunch of MPs on the edges of majoritarian politics and Ed if some of the wilder projections of electoral breakthrough really came to pass. With recent events I think members are starting to wonder.

    In the Tory case I’d suggest they are about to elect the choice better suited to bringing the party back from heavy defeat when in opposition, while they are actually still in government (more or less).
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,788
    AndyJS said:

    Perhaps Jo Swinson would be more likely to win extra converts to the LDs, whereas Ed Davey is more of a shoring up the base candidate.

    Ha! I was thinking it might be the other way round.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,110
    I agree Davey has had a good campaign. I don’t actually know anyone who’s voted for him though: indeed, one of our local LD councillors switched to Swinson mid-campaign.

    (I was disappointed the electronic voting form didn’t have any space to write-in Layla...)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
    One day during this period, my father was walking down Fifth Avenue with his then wife, Marla, when he came across a homeless man sitting in front of Trump Tower. My father turned to Marla and said, “You know, that guy has 900 million dollars more than me.” I wasn’t sure what he meant ... He was standing in front of a magnificent building with our name on it. How could a homeless man possibly have been in better financial shape than my father? “At least he doesn’t owe any money,” my father explained when he saw how confused I looked. “He’s got nothing, but I owe 900 million. By my count, that makes him far richer than me.”

    Ivanka Trump, in The Trump Card.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
    One day during this period, my father was walking down Fifth Avenue with his then wife, Marla, when he came across a homeless man sitting in front of Trump Tower. My father turned to Marla and said, “You know, that guy has 900 million dollars more than me.” I wasn’t sure what he meant ... He was standing in front of a magnificent building with our name on it. How could a homeless man possibly have been in better financial shape than my father? “At least he doesn’t owe any money,” my father explained when he saw how confused I looked. “He’s got nothing, but I owe 900 million. By my count, that makes him far richer than me.”

    Ivanka Trump, in The Trump Card.
    I felt that degree of self-awareness, from either Trump, unlikely. I see the hand of a ghost-writer.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,810
    Mike obviously has far better links to the Lib Dems than me but for what it's worth, I think he's right.

    Davey could appear on an election stage within four months, alongside Boris and Corbyn, and look most prime ministerial. I don't think Swinson could. That sort of thing must make some difference.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    If LibDems feel that the policy difference between Ed and Jo is so marginal as to be of little importance and their leadership and personal qualities do not strike a winning blow then the yellow peril should opt for Swinson.

    Davey is a white middle aged man and doesn't wear yellow outfits (not in public anyway .. :smile: ) . Swinson will simply get more attention among the grey suits, literally and figuratively.

    A female leader would be the better optic for the LibDems at a time when their national presence is much wider. On that situation my criticism of Swinson would reflect that at times she seems strident. In a man that often appears as bold and strong but in a woman some would find that characteristic as unappealing .... I like it .... :wink:



  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,150
    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    I think Corbyn generally voted against ID cards under Blair, although I suppose he may have changed his mind since then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
    One day during this period, my father was walking down Fifth Avenue with his then wife, Marla, when he came across a homeless man sitting in front of Trump Tower. My father turned to Marla and said, “You know, that guy has 900 million dollars more than me.” I wasn’t sure what he meant ... He was standing in front of a magnificent building with our name on it. How could a homeless man possibly have been in better financial shape than my father? “At least he doesn’t owe any money,” my father explained when he saw how confused I looked. “He’s got nothing, but I owe 900 million. By my count, that makes him far richer than me.”

    Ivanka Trump, in The Trump Card.
    I felt that degree of self-awareness, from either Trump, unlikely. I see the hand of a ghost-writer.
    You can see the hand of a ghost? I thought they were transparent?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,527
    Can a LibDem sum up each candidate in one line pls.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 3,697
    I honestly have no real knowledge of the two LD candidates, though my perception of Swinson is warmer than that of Davey. Whoever wins I expect them to face trial by ordeal fairly quickly as we come to yet another Brexit denouement and face a likely general election.

    I know that both are saying no to coalition deals - I understand that. The membership largely hated the Tory coalition, so to win their vote you have to have a position they can support. When it comes down to it though we know that Boris and Farage will do a deal for leave. That means that if progressive parties want to stop that they need to combine their larger remain forces.

    As for the Tory leadership contest, I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos take over the bodies of the two presidential election candidates only revealing themselves on polling day - "you have to vote for one of us, its a two party system!".

    Hunt or Johnson as our next PM. We need a modern day Montgomery Brewster to win the day for "None of the above"
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,527
    Scott_P said:
    The intention seems pretty similar for both. The rhetoric is slightly different.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,416
    JackW said:

    If LibDems feel that the policy difference between Ed and Jo is so marginal as to be of little importance and their leadership and personal qualities do not strike a winning blow then the yellow peril should opt for Swinson.

    Davey is a white middle aged man and doesn't wear yellow outfits (not in public anyway .. :smile: ) . Swinson will simply get more attention among the grey suits, literally and figuratively.

    A female leader would be the better optic for the LibDems at a time when their national presence is much wider. On that situation my criticism of Swinson would reflect that at times she seems strident. In a man that often appears as bold and strong but in a woman some would find that characteristic as unappealing .... I like it .... :wink:



    Would it help if Davey were to wear a yellow dress? Perhaps I could send him a couple....?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.

    A government issued id card means we cross the rubicon where the state formally validates our existence and the requirement to prove so to any arm of the state on demand.

    A passport, driving license and other cards are consumer driven that allows the holder to obtain a service or right. The individual must be allowed to go about their lawful business without the state requiring us to prove the citizens right to do so.

    A formal national id is another step in the surveillance state - approx 6 million cameras and counting and routine public facial recognition on the way without any provision currently for safeguards. And yet try and take pictures of surveillance cameras whilst in public or street photography and note the often negative interaction of police, security or the burgeoning army of local authority jobsworths.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471
    Agree on the tip. In a two horse race with limited evidence/polling, Davey is value at 4/1.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    JackW said:

    If LibDems feel that the policy difference between Ed and Jo is so marginal as to be of little importance and their leadership and personal qualities do not strike a winning blow then the yellow peril should opt for Swinson.

    Davey is a white middle aged man and doesn't wear yellow outfits (not in public anyway .. :smile: ) . Swinson will simply get more attention among the grey suits, literally and figuratively.

    A female leader would be the better optic for the LibDems at a time when their national presence is much wider. On that situation my criticism of Swinson would reflect that at times she seems strident. In a man that often appears as bold and strong but in a woman some would find that characteristic as unappealing .... I like it .... :wink:



    Would it help if Davey were to wear a yellow dress? Perhaps I could send him a couple....?
    He'd only be accused of skirting round the main issues.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,579
    edited July 2

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453
    edited July 2


    Maybe I've badly got the wrong end of this but surely then he would pick a higher percentage... if 50% own nothing then the bottom positive 20 or so would probably still not add up to those top 3...

    The tweet itself is badly worded as he implies the whole 50% has no assets (net) but if you click the article it actually says some of those 50% have no assets.

    Dunno, it could easily be half; I mean I guess pretty much anyone with a mortgage is going to have negative assets until it's pretty close to paid off, not to mention anyone youngish with student loan debt. It just makes sense for large parts of the population who still have a lot of earning ahead of them to borrow against their future earnings. Then even as you get older, a lot of your wealth should be building up in your pension, and I'm not sure if they count that...

    But doesn't this show you how arbitrary and pointless this whole exercise is???

    A somewhat less useless way of looking at it is that the top 3 people have (don't bet too much on my maths) basically $1000 per American, which is a sign of fairly humongous inequality, and also feels like something you could be taxing some more without doing too much damage to Jeff's incentive to get up and go into work tomorrow morning. They might also like to consider putting a windfall tax on exceedingly large divorce settlements...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777

    JackW said:

    If LibDems feel that the policy difference between Ed and Jo is so marginal as to be of little importance and their leadership and personal qualities do not strike a winning blow then the yellow peril should opt for Swinson.

    Davey is a white middle aged man and doesn't wear yellow outfits (not in public anyway .. :smile: ) . Swinson will simply get more attention among the grey suits, literally and figuratively.

    A female leader would be the better optic for the LibDems at a time when their national presence is much wider. On that situation my criticism of Swinson would reflect that at times she seems strident. In a man that often appears as bold and strong but in a woman some would find that characteristic as unappealing .... I like it .... :wink:



    Would it help if Davey were to wear a yellow dress? Perhaps I could send him a couple....?
    Absolutely. You've plenty of yellow couture outfits to spare so knock yourself out .... Your efforts to secure another cross dressing Prime Minister would surely be rewarded in short measure .. :lol:
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,150
    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    ydoethur said:

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
    One day during this period, my father was walking down Fifth Avenue with his then wife, Marla, when he came across a homeless man sitting in front of Trump Tower. My father turned to Marla and said, “You know, that guy has 900 million dollars more than me.” I wasn’t sure what he meant ... He was standing in front of a magnificent building with our name on it. How could a homeless man possibly have been in better financial shape than my father? “At least he doesn’t owe any money,” my father explained when he saw how confused I looked. “He’s got nothing, but I owe 900 million. By my count, that makes him far richer than me.”

    Ivanka Trump, in The Trump Card.
    I felt that degree of self-awareness, from either Trump, unlikely. I see the hand of a ghost-writer.
    You can see the hand of a ghost? I thought they were transparent?
    I've heard of plenty of people who've seen ghosts. Never have myself, apart from the aforementioned.
    Perhaps I should have written 'sense the hand'!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    If LibDems feel that the policy difference between Ed and Jo is so marginal as to be of little importance and their leadership and personal qualities do not strike a winning blow then the yellow peril should opt for Swinson.

    Davey is a white middle aged man and doesn't wear yellow outfits (not in public anyway .. :smile: ) . Swinson will simply get more attention among the grey suits, literally and figuratively.

    A female leader would be the better optic for the LibDems at a time when their national presence is much wider. On that situation my criticism of Swinson would reflect that at times she seems strident. In a man that often appears as bold and strong but in a woman some would find that characteristic as unappealing .... I like it .... :wink:



    Would it help if Davey were to wear a yellow dress? Perhaps I could send him a couple....?
    He'd only be accused of skirting round the main issues.
    @Peter_the_Punter will give you a dressing down for that bra(zen) comment.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1145939131161337856

    Meanwhile also on Twitter, some hilarious photoshopping under #unwantedIvanka
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329

    I have no firm views either way.

    I used to be like that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    Cyclefree said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
    I was opposed to them too, but seeing the trauma of the unfortunate Windrush people, I wonder. If they had been issued with ID cards, would successive Conservative Home Secretaries, starting with May, been able to behave n the fashion in which they did?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    I have no problem with being required to hold government ID as long as you are not required to carry it on your person at all times.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471


    Maybe I've badly got the wrong end of this but surely then he would pick a higher percentage... if 50% own nothing then the bottom positive 20 or so would probably still not add up to those top 3...

    The tweet itself is badly worded as he implies the whole 50% has no assets (net) but if you click the article it actually says some of those 50% have no assets.

    Dunno, it could easily be half; I mean I guess pretty much anyone with a mortgage is going to have negative assets until it's pretty close to paid off, not to mention anyone youngish with student loan debt. It just makes sense for large parts of the population who still have a lot of earning ahead of them to borrow against their future earnings. Then even as you get older, a lot of your wealth should be building up in your pension, and I'm not sure if they count that...

    But doesn't this show you how arbitrary and pointless this whole exercise is??.
    If you have a mortgage, then you own a house, which is likely to be worth more than the mortgage.

    It's a relevant exercise IMO because survey evidence shows people still drastically underestimate how unequal society is, and this is an effective statistic for comms which cuts through more than say a GINI coefficient.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    I was going by your reference to annoying screechy voices and supercilious manner.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    Does that invalidate Sanders' point about wealth inequality, or underline it? Surely the latter.

    As an aside, this seems to come from the 2017 Forbes rich list, which showed the top 400 Americans own more than Britain's GDP. (Apples and oranges? Perhaps.)
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/
    https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BILLIONAIRE-BONANZA-2017-Embargoed.pdf
    Wealth vs income (gdp) isn’t meaningful

    As a rule of thumb, $20 of wealth = $1 of income
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    I have no problem with being required to hold government ID as long as you are not required to carry it on your person at all times.

    I would only be willing to accept them, even under those circumstances, if I had complete access to the database behind it including a mechanism for seeing who was looking at my data.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    Despite operating in a two-party majoritarian political environment, both major parties are now run by cults excessively eager to tell even many of their own supporters that they aren’t wanted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    Wow. That really would revitalise the party's fortunes. For a start, it would give than an extra 300 MPs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    edited July 2
    IanB2 said:

    both major parties are now run by cults

    Typo there old chap. Your finger somehow chose an 'l' which is actually quite a long way from the correct letter...
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,150

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    I think stodge makes an important point about the lds and coalition and not perpetuating paralysis, though I think he underestimates the trouble they could get in. The lds would prefer not to have to even deal with anyone else, in a way an extreme view as a rejection of compromise, because they get punished for doing so. But it will probably be unavoidable. What the members do this time as they cut deals will be interesting.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    edited July 2
    TOPPING said:

    Can a LibDem sum up each candidate in one line pls.

    On policy, very little difference. Davey older and more experienced, Swinson possibly has broader appeal and more willing to work closely with other parties.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471

    Cyclefree said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
    I was opposed to them too, but seeing the trauma of the unfortunate Windrush people, I wonder. If they had been issued with ID cards, would successive Conservative Home Secretaries, starting with May, been able to behave n the fashion in which they did?
    Yes, I feel the same. Arguably people have a right to some form of ID card - although that's not the same as forcing people to have one.

    I think by law all births in the UK must be registered? So if born in the UK, then we are all on a database somewhere?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Stella Creasy is the single more annoying politician in my view
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They woukdnt. The arguments used to say we should remain apply irrespective of any vote. Theyd probably say theyd accept that but at the moment if parliamentary action their reasoning would require opposition
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 1,446
    This summed up the vagaries of identifying yourself in the UK quite nicely.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Unlike Corbyn, who voted for them 428 times.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    kle4 said:

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They woukdnt. The arguments used to say we should remain apply irrespective of any vote. Theyd probably say theyd accept that but at the moment if parliamentary action their reasoning would require opposition
    There is nothing in politics that says you have to agree with the decisions of others, and it is possible to accept a decision without agreeing with it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    ydoethur said:

    I have no problem with being required to hold government ID as long as you are not required to carry it on your person at all times.

    I would only be willing to accept them, even under those circumstances, if I had complete access to the database behind it including a mechanism for seeing who was looking at my data.
    Agreed. That sounds very sensible.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Stella Creasy is the single more annoying politician in my view
    I like Stella, but she too is in the wrong party, as so many of her current party colleagues spend a lot of time telling her.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    eristdoof said:

    RobD said:

    I don't have much of a preference from the outside, hard to tell them much apart as Lib Dem leaders although I haven't really paid any attention.

    Going off topic I enjoyed this 'fact' check

    lol, but TBF the Wapo is right. I mean, if the bottom 50% of the US have net negative assets, it's true that the top 3 people have more wealth than the bottom 50% combined, but it's also true that *Bernie Sanders* has more wealth than the bottom 50% combined.
    So it's not untrue? This is up there with the "bleach" fact check about Clinton's emails.
    More or Less (R4) a while back when looking at measures of Wealth pointed out that if the standard "net worth" measure is used then the poorest person on earth was a french finance trader Jerome Kerviel who had committed a crime and recieved a fine of 4.9 billion Euros.


    It is obvious to everyone that Mr Kerviel is far from what we think of as "one of the poorest people on earth".
    As so often is the case, a simple metric does not measure the effect we want it to.
    One day during this period, my father was walking down Fifth Avenue with his then wife, Marla, when he came across a homeless man sitting in front of Trump Tower. My father turned to Marla and said, “You know, that guy has 900 million dollars more than me.” I wasn’t sure what he meant ... He was standing in front of a magnificent building with our name on it. How could a homeless man possibly have been in better financial shape than my father? “At least he doesn’t owe any money,” my father explained when he saw how confused I looked. “He’s got nothing, but I owe 900 million. By my count, that makes him far richer than me.”

    Ivanka Trump, in The Trump Card.
    I felt that degree of self-awareness, from either Trump, unlikely. I see the hand of a ghost-writer.
    Ivanka is a giant of political philosophy. Her book ranks alongside Boris's The Churchill Factor at the top of Oxford's PPE reading list. I own both, as no doubt do most if not all PBers.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can a LibDem sum up each candidate in one line pls.

    On policy, very little difference. Davey older and more experienced, Swinson possibly has broader appeal and more willing to work closely with other parties.
    should have used a semicolon
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    edited July 2

    I honestly have no real knowledge of the two LD candidates, though my perception of Swinson is warmer than that of Davey. Whoever wins I expect them to face trial by ordeal fairly quickly as we come to yet another Brexit denouement and face a likely general election.

    I know that both are saying no to coalition deals - I understand that. The membership largely hated the Tory coalition, so to win their vote you have to have a position they can support. When it comes down to it though we know that Boris and Farage will do a deal for leave. That means that if progressive parties want to stop that they need to combine their larger remain forces.

    As for the Tory leadership contest, I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where Kang and Kodos take over the bodies of the two presidential election candidates only revealing themselves on polling day - "you have to vote for one of us, its a two party system!".

    Hunt or Johnson as our next PM. We need a modern day Montgomery Brewster to win the day for "None of the above"

    You and I both know there is no way on God's earth that the Corbyn Labour party will do a formal deal with any other party before or after a general election. There will be absolutely no compromises on that. The far left does not do compromise.

    Meanwhile, the Tories have handed control of their Brexit policy to Nigel Farage. Having done that, Hunt and Johnson have no choice but to hop on board the magic Unicorn tot he land of the Magic Money Tree. The denouement will be quite something. And Farage will still be there screaming betrayal. However, it's now pretty clear that before we can move on as a country the hard right English nationalism that the Tories have now decided to embrace has to be tested to destruction. It means a No Deal and facing up to the reality of what that means at home and internationally.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    Cyclefree said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
    I hope he maintains that stance rather than, like some politicians, end up doing basically the same thing only bowcits a wretched Corbyn measure.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732

    ydoethur said:

    I have no problem with being required to hold government ID as long as you are not required to carry it on your person at all times.

    I would only be willing to accept them, even under those circumstances, if I had complete access to the database behind it including a mechanism for seeing who was looking at my data.
    Agreed. That sounds very sensible.
    Can't claim credit. It's the Estonian system.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,148
    If Brexit is a failure, the natural result is going to be the Euro and Schengen. No pressure, Brexiteers.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006


    Maybe I've badly got the wrong end of this but surely then he would pick a higher percentage... if 50% own nothing then the bottom positive 20 or so would probably still not add up to those top 3...

    The tweet itself is badly worded as he implies the whole 50% has no assets (net) but if you click the article it actually says some of those 50% have no assets.

    Dunno, it could easily be half; I mean I guess pretty much anyone with a mortgage is going to have negative assets until it's pretty close to paid off, not to mention anyone youngish with student loan debt. It just makes sense for large parts of the population who still have a lot of earning ahead of them to borrow against their future earnings. Then even as you get older, a lot of your wealth should be building up in your pension, and I'm not sure if they count that...

    But doesn't this show you how arbitrary and pointless this whole exercise is???

    A somewhat less useless way of looking at it is that the top 3 people have (don't bet too much on my maths) basically $1000 per American, which is a sign of fairly humongous inequality, and also feels like something you could be taxing some more without doing too much damage to Jeff's incentive to get up and go into work tomorrow morning. They might also like to consider putting a windfall tax on exceedingly large divorce settlements...
    A Harvard law graduate with $120,000 of student loan debt is much worse off than a subsistence farming villager in India....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,527
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can a LibDem sum up each candidate in one line pls.

    On policy, very little difference. Davey older and more experienced, Swinson possibly has broader appeal and more willing to work closely with other parties.
    Thanks. So not much difference on policy?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Unlike Corbyn, who voted for them 428 times.
    Hmm, bit of fake news there... rebelling against Labour isn't voting for the Tories...

    Especially when the Tories are actually voting the opposite way to him with Labour. Like Iraq which was over multiple votes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Stella Creasy is the single more annoying politician in my view
    I like Stella, but she too is in the wrong party, as so many of her current party colleagues spend a lot of time telling her.
    She comes over (to me) as patronising and trite
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    edited July 2
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Stella Creasy is the single more annoying politician in my view
    I like Stella, but she too is in the wrong party, as so many of her current party colleagues spend a lot of time telling her.
    Stella Creasy should have joined the Labour front bench rather than the futile boycott. Her work on payday loans established her as a rising star and no doubt future minister, but now she is just another backbencher who could have been a contender.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    edited July 2
    kle4 said:

    I think stodge makes an important point about the lds and coalition and not perpetuating paralysis, though I think he underestimates the trouble they could get in. The lds would prefer not to have to even deal with anyone else, in a way an extreme view as a rejection of compromise, because they get punished for doing so. But it will probably be unavoidable. What the members do this time as they cut deals will be interesting.

    Brexit make coalition with the Tories impossible, Corbyn makes coalition with Labour impossible. Corbyn and his clique are easier to change. Either way, lessons have been learnt from the previous Westminster Coalition. Worth noting that in devolved parliaments and local government, working with other parties is unremarkable. Why should Westminster be different? We do not need to restrict ourselves to the two death cults on offer.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They woukdnt. The arguments used to say we should remain apply irrespective of any vote. Theyd probably say theyd accept that but at the moment if parliamentary action their reasoning would require opposition
    There is nothing in politics that says you have to agree with the decisions of others, and it is possible to accept a decision without agreeing with it.
    Yes it is. But they wouldn't accept it, they would fight it even after a second vote, I have zero doubt about that. It's a perfectly honourable position to take, and one almost required by their own logic about leaving the EU.

    Which is why they should not pretend there are any circumstances where they would accept it even though they disagree. Its possible to do that, as you say, but if you talk about leaving the EU like the LDs do, accepting it makes no sense.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    I don't have a vote in this one having let my membership lapse but I'd be voting Davey if I could. The Lib Dems look like they might be on the verge of something quite spectacular and he has more gravitas.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
    I hope he maintains that stance rather than, like some politicians, end up doing basically the same thing only bowcits a wretched Corbyn measure.
    He will go along with the consensus in the party on some measures such as Trident for example but I think he would be reluctant with ID cards and I don't think there is a huge call for it in the party, among members or MPs. If we ended up with a Corbyn led minority government I don't see potential partners pushing it either.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,484

    If Brexit is a failure, the natural result is going to be the Euro and Schengen. No pressure, Brexiteers.

    Ahem.

    How the Leavers may have ultimately signed the United Kingdom up for the single currency, the Schengen agreement, an EU Army, and a United States of Europe.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-brexiteers-junckers-fifth-columnists/
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,777

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Corbyn was joined at the hip for more than 40 years with terrorists and rogue states. His record speaks for itself.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Can a LibDem sum up each candidate in one line pls.

    On policy, very little difference. Davey older and more experienced, Swinson possibly has broader appeal and more willing to work closely with other parties.
    Thanks. So not much difference on policy?
    More differences of emphasis than policy differences. Davey very keen on environmental issues for example.

    One undiscussed factor is that Swindon may be more under threat in her own seat, particularly in a Brexit election.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    Of the two, Swinson looks more voter friendly to me, but long-term LDs seem to prefer Davey. Either of them look better than the current alternatives on offer from Labour and the Tories. However, Johnson and Corbyn are both going to inspire a lot of tactical voting. I can see the LDs getting a lot of the Unionist vote in Scotland and challenging the Tories in various parts of England, but I don't see a major breakthrough. I hope I am wrong, though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    I think stodge makes an important point about the lds and coalition and not perpetuating paralysis, though I think he underestimates the trouble they could get in. The lds would prefer not to have to even deal with anyone else, in a way an extreme view as a rejection of compromise, because they get punished for doing so. But it will probably be unavoidable. What the members do this time as they cut deals will be interesting.

    Brexit make coalition with the Tories impossible, Corbyn makes coalition with Labour impossible. Corbyn and his clique are easier to change. Either way, lessons have been learnt from the previous Westminster Coalition. Worth noting that in devolved parliaments and local government, working with other parties is unremarkable. Why should Westminster be different? We do not need to restrict ourselves to the two death cults on offer.
    The lesson learned is we wont ever have coalition again, which is unfortunate as it cuts off a potential option.

    And I wasnt suggesting there needed to be coalition, just that at Westminster the sides dont want to work together unless it is one side doing what the other wants without reciprocity.

    You're right it happens elsewhere but the lds at Westminster are no less unrealistic than the big two in, in effect, disavowing cooperation even though it may be necessary.


    Dont believe me? If the lds said theyd work with anyone judging an issue on its merits case by case theyd be criticised, ultimately itd come down to who they propped up, coalition or no.

    Last time half their support disappeared before there was even a chance to see if the wins outweighed the losses. Even less formal cooperation would see large amounts of support jump ship.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    I think stodge makes an important point about the lds and coalition and not perpetuating paralysis, though I think he underestimates the trouble they could get in. The lds would prefer not to have to even deal with anyone else, in a way an extreme view as a rejection of compromise, because they get punished for doing so. But it will probably be unavoidable. What the members do this time as they cut deals will be interesting.

    Brexit make coalition with the Tories impossible, Corbyn makes coalition with Labour impossible. Corbyn and his clique are easier to change. Either way, lessons have been learnt from the previous Westminster Coalition. Worth noting that in devolved parliaments and local government, working with other parties is unremarkable. Why should Westminster be different? We do not need to restrict ourselves to the two seatbelts on offer.
    The LibDems are irrelevant at Westminster because they have only a handful of MPs. They are the fifth party (with the DUP's C&S agreement putting them a nose ahead).

    As the third party, LibDems would be on almost every news and current affairs programme for balance. Now they are not.

    Nick Clegg's disastrous coalition agreement, where he prostituted the party's programme and principles for an AV referendum which he promptly lost, was one nail in the LibDems' coffin but the other is the rise of the SNP, who have five times as many MPs. That is the reality and worrying about yellow dresses and reaching out to other parties misses the point that until there is a recovery, they will remain irrelevant.

    What they need is another Chat Show Charlie, and they ain't got one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They woukdnt. The arguments used to say we should remain apply irrespective of any vote. Theyd probably say theyd accept that but at the moment if parliamentary action their reasoning would require opposition
    There is nothing in politics that says you have to agree with the decisions of others, and it is possible to accept a decision without agreeing with it.
    Yes it is. But they wouldn't accept it, they would fight it even after a second vote, I have zero doubt about that. It's a perfectly honourable position to take, and one almost required by their own logic about leaving the EU.

    Which is why they should not pretend there are any circumstances where they would accept it even though they disagree. Its possible to do that, as you say, but if you talk about leaving the EU like the LDs do, accepting it makes no sense.
    They would both accept it, but advocate very close arrangements such as EEA.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Stella Creasy is the single more annoying politician in my view
    I like Stella, but she too is in the wrong party, as so many of her current party colleagues spend a lot of time telling her.
    Stella Creasy should have joined the Labour front bench rather than the futile boycott. Her work on payday loans established her as a rising star and no doubt future minister, but now she is just another backbencher who could have been a contender.

    There are a lot of long-time backbenchers on the current Labour front bench. Almost all of them are nowhere near Creasy in terms of effectiveness, intelligence and electability. Her time will come.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Corbyn was joined at the hip for more than 40 years with terrorists and rogue states. His record speaks for itself.
    James Cleverly was waxing lyrical about a terrorist being one of his hero's not so long ago.... turns out the people in uniforms aren't always the good guys.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,927

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    I think stodge makes an important point about the lds and coalition and not perpetuating paralysis, though I think he underestimates the trouble they could get in. The lds would prefer not to have to even deal with anyone else, in a way an extreme view as a rejection of compromise, because they get punished for doing so. But it will probably be unavoidable. What the members do this time as they cut deals will be interesting.

    Brexit make coalition with the Tories impossible, Corbyn makes coalition with Labour impossible. Corbyn and his clique are easier to change. Either way, lessons have been learnt from the previous Westminster Coalition. Worth noting that in devolved parliaments and local government, working with other parties is unremarkable. Why should Westminster be different? We do not need to restrict ourselves to the two seatbelts on offer.
    The LibDems are irrelevant at Westminster because they have only a handful of MPs. They are the fifth party (with the DUP's C&S agreement putting them a nose ahead).

    As the third party, LibDems would be on almost every news and current affairs programme for balance. Now they are not.

    Nick Clegg's disastrous coalition agreement, where he prostituted the party's programme and principles for an AV referendum which he promptly lost, was one nail in the LibDems' coffin but the other is the rise of the SNP, who have five times as many MPs. That is the reality and worrying about yellow dresses and reaching out to other parties misses the point that until there is a recovery, they will remain irrelevant.

    What they need is another Chat Show Charlie, and they ain't got one.
    Do they when the Tories are about to elect their equivalent...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,580

    Mike obviously has far better links to the Lib Dems than me but for what it's worth, I think he's right.

    Davey could appear on an election stage within four months, alongside Boris and Corbyn, and look most prime ministerial. I don't think Swinson could. That sort of thing must make some difference.

    Indeed, compared with Boris or the Jew hater you look a giant
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329


    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Unlike Corbyn, who voted for them 428 times.
    Hmm, bit of fake news there... rebelling against Labour isn't voting for the Tories...
    I'll bet PM Corbyn would see it that way if people rebel against him in office. The demands of office and the job have seen Corbyn become a lot more like a regular politician than he would admit.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    edited July 2
    Davey might be able to attract remainer Tories better, whereas Swinson could appeal more to younger voters perhaps.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    edited July 2
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Corbyn was joined at the hip for more than 40 years with terrorists and rogue states. His record speaks for itself.

    Corbyn is Corbyn. He remains in place because he is vacuous and pliable - and because there is no alternative around which the Labour far left can unite.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453
    Foxy said:

    Corbyn makes coalition with Labour impossible.

    I know they've been saying that but I wonder if they'd really insist.

    If Corbyn is in charge of Labour, you need go give up fairly impressive concessions to persuade Labour to change Corbyn. OTOH Corbyn really wants to be PM, and probably doesn't care that much either way about many of the LibDems' priorities, so the LibDems could get a *lot* of what they want out of a Lab-Lib government. And the corollary of that is that Corbyn would be constrained by what the LibDems thought was OK, so they wouldn't need to worry that he was going to nationalize Morrisons or remove the missiles from Trident and give them to the Palestinians or whatever.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Stodge comments "The great unasked question of course was whether either or both would accept a second referendum result which again showed a majority to LEAVE the EU."

    Surely the Lib Dem hustings are a failure and Lib Dem members are ostriches if the answer to this question is unknown.

    They woukdnt. The arguments used to say we should remain apply irrespective of any vote. Theyd probably say theyd accept that but at the moment if parliamentary action their reasoning would require opposition
    There is nothing in politics that says you have to agree with the decisions of others, and it is possible to accept a decision without agreeing with it.
    Yes it is. But they wouldn't accept it, they would fight it even after a second vote, I have zero doubt about that. It's a perfectly honourable position to take, and one almost required by their own logic about leaving the EU.

    Which is why they should not pretend there are any circumstances where they would accept it even though they disagree. Its possible to do that, as you say, but if you talk about leaving the EU like the LDs do, accepting it makes no sense.
    They would both accept it, but advocate very close arrangements such as EEA.
    Yeah right they would. They didn't last time but second time theyd feel obliged? Come off it, we're well past the point of needing to believe that kind of spin. I dont doubt they'd say they would do that, but push come to shove? I'd as soon believe Grieve if he said it.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,567
    kle4 said:


    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Unlike Corbyn, who voted for them 428 times.
    Hmm, bit of fake news there... rebelling against Labour isn't voting for the Tories...
    I'll bet PM Corbyn would see it that way if people rebel against him in office. The demands of office and the job have seen Corbyn become a lot more like a regular politician than he would admit.
    I imagine Corbyn rebels would actually be voting with the Tories.

    I think Corbyn has actually voted with the Tories, ID cards might be a rare example but people confuse rebelling against Labour with voting with the Conservatives.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,150
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    I was going by your reference to annoying screechy voices and supercilious manner.
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    Whenever Jo Swinson is on TV, I have to press the mute button. I find her screeching voice very disagreeable plus she comes across as supercilious.

    I can understand why under those circumstances you would find her annoying. A refusal to go to her natural home in the Labour Party must rankle.
    Her natural home is in the Tory Party going by her record. I suspect she has not become a member because she is too grand for them.
    Everyone who isn’t a Corbynista should join the Tories am I right??
    She was joined at the hip to them for 5 years. Her record speaks for itself.
    Corbyn was joined at the hip for more than 40 years with terrorists and rogue states. His record speaks for itself.
    Like the Khmer Rouge, Pinochet and the Saudis?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. JohnL, ID cards might be a rare area of agreement between Corbyn and Blair. I wonder...

    They're the reason I joined PB. In 2007 I thought Brown would call and win a snap election, and I'd be forced to either have an ID card or break the law. It was, and remains, a vile and wretched thing (the accompanying database being abhorrent).

    I scoured the web for blogs and sites, and though I found a few, the only one I posted on and kept visiting was this one.

    Lucky too. I don't have the stakes for big money (or even medium money) gambling but I've made a little bit, and gained the delightful bragging rights for a 250/1 winner (and a 70/1 winner with Button for the 2009 title).

    The trouble with not having ID cards is that more and more, we need proxy ID cards like driving licences or passports to prove our identity. Try opening a bank account or even a bookmaker's account without one. Only a cynic would suggest some of these are artificial requirements put in place to bolster the case for ID cards, and not removed afterwards.
    There is a big difference between having some form of ID to open a bank account and having a state-mandated ID card with a database behind it which (the card) a government official or policeman can ask you to show on pain of penalties. The latter gives the state even more power over you and makes you answerable to the state rather than the other way around. The latter is how it should be in a free country. IMO.

    Corbyn voting against ID cards is one of the things I will applaud him for. ID cards were a wretched Blair measure.
    I hope he maintains that stance rather than, like some politicians, end up doing basically the same thing only bowcits a wretched Corbyn measure.
    He will go along with the consensus in the party on some measures such as Trident for example but I think he would be reluctant with ID cards and I don't think there is a huge call for it in the party, among members or MPs. If we ended up with a Corbyn led minority government I don't see potential partners pushing it either.
    There doesn't seem to big a big push on it as you say. Corbyn is capable of good ideas after all .
This discussion has been closed.