Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s impending victory affects the Mayoral betting

135

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Tessa has collapsed to 3rd favourite on betfair! [/Stuart Dickson mode]

    Hmm my attempt to lay Khan at 2.66 may have been a touch optimistic ;p
    Given that Shadsy, Wm Hill and Sky offer 4.33, yes, I think so! Don't be so greedy!
    You never know when someone clueless might wonder onto Betfair though - Sol Campbell laid at 17.5 for £19 !!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited August 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Have you received a ballot yet ?

    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

    Dear Sir,

    {snip}

    Best wishes,

    Andy Burnham
    Labour Leadership Candidate
    @corbynjokes@corbynjokes

    What looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck?
    Andy Burnham after being told he need to be more duck-like.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Pulpstar said:

    Have you received a ballot yet ?

    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

    Dear Sir,
    ...

    Best wishes,

    Andy Burnham
    Labour Leadership Candidate
    A radical vision, yet he's droning on about Fatcha in the 80's? Dullard.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited August 2015
    Some more detail on the state of this race:

    All the bookies currently have Tessa Jowell as the favourite to win that race. But is she really? Is the same party about to crown the leadership to the hard left Jeremy Corbyn, also about to crown the mayoral nomination to an ardent Blairite?

    There are several reasons to believe not.


    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08/18/could-the-corbyn-surge-overturn-labour-s-mayoral-race
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    watford30 said:

    Financier said:

    Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.

    In my time I have had discussions with Fidel Castro, the then head of the KGB etc. I did this to gain knowledge and also pass on certain messages - does that make me and others a bad person?
    Did you give them any money?
    You must be joking! I never give money to such people and certainly have refused all blandishments offered.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    Pulpstar said:

    Have you received a ballot yet ?

    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

    Dear Sir,

    The future of the Labour Party hangs in the balance this week.

    This Leadership Election has shown that Labour is crying out for a big vision. But we’re also at grave risk of returning to the in-fighting of the early 80s, when we allowed Thatcher’s Government to bulldoze her way through Labour communities up and down this country. I won’t let that happen again.

    I’m offering a radical vision, but one with economic credibility at its heart. I will unite our Party, bringing together the many voices that have emerged during this campaign, and I will make sure we win in 2020 on the back of truly Labour policies and values.

    Please read my manifesto here and watch an extract from the speech I gave yesterday here:

    Andy's speechClick here to watch the video

    Let’s unite against our real Opposition – the Tories – and deliver the Labour Government that this country desperately needs.

    Best wishes,

    Andy Burnham
    Labour Leadership Candidate
    Just don't fall ill in the NHS under his watch. He'll put the reputation of a hospital trust ahead of patients' health.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2015
    @Plato

    How many of your cats have a vote?
    Last night I met a farmer who has a ballot paper plus another for his dog (called Jess)!!
    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

  • PaulyPauly Posts: 897
    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    People may not be familiar with factorial notation:
    4! or 4 factorial means 4 times 3 times 2 times 1 :D
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited August 2015
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    24

    {JC,LK,YC,AB} 1st choice x {3 choices} 2nd choice x {2 choices} 3rd choice.

    Edit: Tissue_Price is correct. There are 40 due to non choice of 2nd prefs etc..
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Pauly said:

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    People may not be familiar with factorial notation:
    4! or 4 factorial means 4 times 3 times 2 times 1 :D
    Don't think I ever came across the notion - so thank you for explaining it.

    Of course, @Tissue_Price has now raised the possibility of voting for only 1 candidate, or just two, so we're getting into the big numbers.

    Hodges needs more papers! Are they listening at Brewer's Green?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Financier said:

    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
    I think at the moment they are just wishing they had a leader.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    calum said:

    I was surprised to see that Corbyn has taken a leaf out of the Jim Murphy playbook and going for the Unionist denier approach to try and woe the lost SLAB voters:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13609421.Corbyn__I_m_a_Socialist_not_a_Unionist/

    The problem with these eye catching headlines is that once you actually read the articles it becomes clear that Corbyn as with Jim are in favour of the union - so effectively contradict themselves - I'm not sure how they think anybody is going to buy their line.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30810362

    Give it a few weeks no doubt Kezia will pop up joining the Unionist denier headline club.

    At least Corbyn has the excuse of being unlikely to have all the details of SLAB's demise at the hands of both the SNP and themselves. On the other hand Kezia was there, knows what happened but still seems committed to Murphy's Law.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    felix said:

    Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.

    Is he on the ballot for Labour leader again? I must have missed it among all the fun and games.
    If he were, he'd come last!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    From Dan's article - this is bang on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html
    We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. Their minds process their warped narrative thus: the modernisation started by Kinnock and carried forward by Blair and Brown was a betrayal. During these dark days only the Corbynites remained true to Labour’s values. And so, by extension, anyone who supported Kinnock, Blair or Brown supported the erosion of those aims and values. Ergo – only those who joined Labour over the past 12 weeks can claim to be genuine Labour supporters.

    What amazes me isn’t that the Corbyn cultists are peddling this rubbish. The hard-Left have always spouted this morally superior effluent. What astonishes me is that ordinary Labour Party members are putting up with this crap. Why are people who have dedicated their lives to Labour letting a bunch of three-quid-dog-on-a-rope-rent-a-Trots lecture them on their own party?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    @JosiasJessop

    Fear not, there will be no mark next to Andy Burnham's name on my ballot.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    How about Never?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JWisemann said:

    JEO said:

    JWisemann said:

    Tory voters have helped into power a party that has armed tens of thousands of anti-Semitic holocaust deniers in number of countries. Jezza might have chatted to a couple whilst campaigning for justice for a people hideously oppressed by a fascist establishment ally. I think we can all see who should be more sanguine about the facts on the ground.

    You can keep pushing this line, but only Jezbollah considers them his friends.
    Except he doesn't, and has stated he disagrees with them and their actions. Unless you want to take the phrase completely out of context, which is the 'realpolitik' of peace talks.
    The difference, of course, is that the government engages in realpolitik because they are elected precisely to do the unpleasant things that the nation needs to do, but would rather not know about it. That is the business of government.

    Unless Corbyn was acting on behalf of the government (which we have no knowledge of) then he had no remit to represent the British nation or people in these discussions. Consequently the only possible advantage that could come from it is in giving succour / publicity to some really nasty people.

    A parallel, for instance, is North Korea. I'm ok with Jimmy Carter going there - because presumably it would be with the White House's blessing. That random basketball player? Not so much.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    Good grief, on all levels:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/18/woman-who-sued-pro-putin-russian-troll-factory-gets-one-rouble-in-damages

    Russian politics is becoming increasingly peculiar.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    CD13 said:

    Mr Dair,

    The kicking Granny is my MP, and the only good thing I can say about her is that for the first time in yonks, my MP is older than me (just). Not altogether sure that's a good thing, though.

    Out of interest what is the local perception as to her trial and punishment? And was it an issue locally in the election, or do the other parties just not bother in St Helens?
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Plato said:

    From Dan's article - this is bang on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html

    We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. Their minds process their warped narrative thus: the modernisation started by Kinnock and carried forward by Blair and Brown was a betrayal. During these dark days only the Corbynites remained true to Labour’s values. And so, by extension, anyone who supported Kinnock, Blair or Brown supported the erosion of those aims and values. Ergo – only those who joined Labour over the past 12 weeks can claim to be genuine Labour supporters.

    What amazes me isn’t that the Corbyn cultists are peddling this rubbish. The hard-Left have always spouted this morally superior effluent. What astonishes me is that ordinary Labour Party members are putting up with this crap. Why are people who have dedicated their lives to Labour letting a bunch of three-quid-dog-on-a-rope-rent-a-Trots lecture them on their own party?
    On the other hand, the right wing (or centrists) or blairites or whatever seem to feel that only people who have never voted except for labour should be allowed to participate? Anyone else is an "entryist", apparently (i don't know, maybe you are allowed to have flirted with the lib dems?)
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Not yet.
    Pulpstar said:

    Have you received a ballot yet ?

    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

    Dear Sir,

    The future of the Labour Party hangs in the balance this week.

    This Leadership Election has shown that Labour is crying out for a big vision. But we’re also at grave risk of returning to the in-fighting of the early 80s, when we allowed Thatcher’s Government to bulldoze her way through Labour communities up and down this country. I won’t let that happen again.

    I’m offering a radical vision, but one with economic credibility at its heart. I will unite our Party, bringing together the many voices that have emerged during this campaign, and I will make sure we win in 2020 on the back of truly Labour policies and values.

    Please read my manifesto here and watch an extract from the speech I gave yesterday here:

    Andy's speechClick here to watch the video

    Let’s unite against our real Opposition – the Tories – and deliver the Labour Government that this country desperately needs.

    Best wishes,

    Andy Burnham
    Labour Leadership Candidate
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Financier said:

    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
    They loved her. Brown and Blair clearly basked in the glory of inviting the great lady for tea.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sean_F said:

    rank - my quoting has gone awry]

    I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.

    Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.

    I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.

    There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.

    If the 'blood libel' is 'unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement' how come an Italian Jewish professor (son of the chief rabbi of Rome, no less) wrote a scholarly work on the subject
    http://www.whale.to/c/toaff.html
    concluding that it was 'not always an invention' ?

    The most informed critics of Israel, Jews and Zionism are Jews themselves. For example, what would you make of this fascinating and heartfelt discussion between a New York rabbi and ex-IDF soldier Gilad Atzmon?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBuUqPndqg

    Why shouldn't a particular historical event be subject to the same form of analysis (i.e. pro and con) as any other historical event? As Gilad Atzmon says
    "...both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. . . . even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists."

    There is plain evidence that Zionists and Nazis collaborated to bring about a Jewish state.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Wartime_contacts_with_Italy_and_Germany

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684
    edited August 2015

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    Swinney strikes again...

    In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.

    As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.

    Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4530241.ece
    Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
    So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing?
    Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...

    You halfwit, instead of just reading the Turnip's post you should have checked it. It was a short term thing caused by Osborne changing the UK tax. Original purpose which worked was to take most people purchasing below a certain number out of paying stamp duty and it succeeded, was so good an idea that Osborne copied it. Looking at one bare number means nothing.

    I note neither you nor turnip Scott have replied to White Rabbit's question.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Cyclefree said:

    felix said:

    Tony Blair has met Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman and holocaust denier, on numerous occasions.

    Is he on the ballot for Labour leader again? I must have missed it among all the fun and games.
    If he were, he'd come last!
    I should think he'd need more security at a Labour party gathering than speaking at an IS rally right now :)

    The lunatics have totally taken control of the Labour asylum since May.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Brilliant! That gives me yet another excuse...

    https://twitter.com/EbenMarks/status/630470959116455936
    Financier said:

    @Plato

    How many of your cats have a vote?
    Last night I met a farmer who has a ballot paper plus another for his dog (called Jess)!!

    Plato said:

    Has Kendall sent out her blurb yet? I've had something from the rest

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited August 2015

    Plato said:

    From Dan's article - this is bang on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html

    We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. Their minds process their warped narrative thus: the modernisation started by Kinnock and carried forward by Blair and Brown was a betrayal. During these dark days only the Corbynites remained true to Labour’s values. And so, by extension, anyone who supported Kinnock, Blair or Brown supported the erosion of those aims and values. Ergo – only those who joined Labour over the past 12 weeks can claim to be genuine Labour supporters.

    What amazes me isn’t that the Corbyn cultists are peddling this rubbish. The hard-Left have always spouted this morally superior effluent. What astonishes me is that ordinary Labour Party members are putting up with this crap. Why are people who have dedicated their lives to Labour letting a bunch of three-quid-dog-on-a-rope-rent-a-Trots lecture them on their own party?
    On the other hand, the right wing (or centrists) or blairites or whatever seem to feel that only people who have never voted except for labour should be allowed to participate? Anyone else is an "entryist", apparently (i don't know, maybe you are allowed to have flirted with the lib dems?)

    Would be amusing to see that criteria applied strictly. For example the late MP for St Helen's South would be out (the one before the one currently explaining herself to a sheriff). So would the late MP for Morley and Outwood, who briefly joined the Young Conservatives for the booze (or was it the speeches)? I'm sure people can think of other examples as well.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_P said:

    Swinney strikes again...

    In April there was only one property sale recorded above this price bracket in the whole of Scotland as the hefty tax increases put off would-be buyers. In May there were two and in June this rose to six.

    As a result the amount raised through the new land and buildings transaction tax (LBTT), which replaced UK-wide stamp duty in Scotland in April, fell to only £982,511 in the second quarter. It had been almost £8.6 million between January and March.

    Under the LBTT, the first tax to be set by the Scottish parliament, buyers of homes worth £750,001 or more will have to pay tax at 12 per cent for the proportion of the value of the property that is higher than that bracket. They also pay 10 per cent for the amount from £325,001 to £750,000.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4530241.ece
    Yawn, saddo , Tories still fighting for list seats like baldy men over a comb. They getting a surge.
    So you think that the collapse in tax receipts is a good thing?
    Put down the invective-gun for a minute and tell us...

    Tax Receipts have not collapsed. Tax changes have timing effects, this was known, planned for and expected. Only an idiot would consider the effect within the first two years.
  • watford30 said:

    Financier said:

    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
    They loved her. Brown and Blair clearly basked in the glory of inviting the great lady for tea.
    Blair and Brown paraded Thatcher like a trophy of war, it was disgusting to see her brought so low in her final years.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    Sandpit said:

    Vetting process, what vetting process..? Dan Hodges is tearing out what little hair hasn't been torn out already.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html

    Last Wednesday, Labour’s “procedure committee” gathered on a conference call to discuss the leadership election. First up was Harriet Harman, who had troubling news: a mapping of new supporters against the party’s election canvassing data had revealed many of them weren’t Labour supporters at all. Almost one in five of the recently registered had voted for other parties at the general election. Given Labour’s canvassing data covered five million voters, Ms Harman proposed cross-referencing all new sign-ups with the canvassing lists. Those who’d told Labour activists in May they were voting Conservative, Respect, Ukip or for any other party would be invited to confirm they were genuine supporters. If they did, their votes would be counted. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t.

    The trade union representatives on the committee listened politely. And then, one by one, they responded. No. There would be no questioning of those who had supported the Conservatives or other parties. Their applications would be processed without further scrutiny.
    Isn't the point of the £3 supporters that you get people from other parties voting, so that you appeal beyond the Labour base? I mean I know the result hasn't worked out, but non-Labour people voting was in the very design of the system, so it's hardly an abuse.

    The only options the late arrivals have is to vote for a candidate that is selected for the ballot by the Labour MPs. As such there is no way in which they can be said to be gerrymandering the outcome, as the winner is a choice of at least 15% of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

    If there is a fault in the system, it is from the idiots who selected the candidates who are on the ballot. A sadder weaker and less inspiring selection is hard to imagine.

    In the few Tory primaries for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, all electors in the constituency are eligible to vote. The trick is to only put good candidates who would be acceptable on the list as candidates. I think Labour may have learnt that now.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108

    watford30 said:

    Financier said:

    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
    They loved her. Brown and Blair clearly basked in the glory of inviting the great lady for tea.
    Blair and Brown paraded Thatcher like a trophy of war, it was disgusting to see her brought so low in her final years.
    I wonder when her illness truly started and surely someone in her team should have persuaded her not to go into bed with Blair. In effect they used her as a smokescreen to try and pretend to be a Continuity government while in the background they were busy Nationalising child rearing and starting a war on Islam they were always destined to lose.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Woke up this morning to find Santa Ed Balls had visited me in the night to drop off my ballot :D
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    RodCrosby said:

    Sean_F said:

    rank - my quoting has gone awry]

    I'm not sure why Wisemann always brings Israel into everything. Still the criticism of someone like Raed Salah is that he has been found by an English court of having uttered the medieval blood libel against Jews. This libel is unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement.

    Not all criticisms of Jews or Israel are anti-Semitic, of course. Equally, there are those who are anti-Semitic and seek to camouflage this by claiming that they are just being anti-Zionist. Best to ignore their own descriptions and look at what they actually say.

    I find it hard to see how anyone who is a Holocaust denier cannot be claimed to be an anti-Semite. Such people usually claim that the Holocaust did not happen and/or that it was less serious than claimed and/or that the only thing wrong with it was that it did not kill enough Jews. We are in the realms of some sort of mental psychosis.

    There's another theory which you overlooked, but which is popular in the Muslim world. Namely, the holocaust did take place, but it was carried out by Jewish leaders, in collaboration with the Nazis, to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.

    If the 'blood libel' is 'unquestionably an anti-Semitic statement' how come an Italian Jewish professor (son of the chief rabbi of Rome, no less) wrote a scholarly work on the subject
    http://www.whale.to/c/toaff.html
    concluding that it was 'not always an invention' ?

    The most informed critics of Israel, Jews and Zionism are Jews themselves. For example, what would you make of this fascinating and heartfelt discussion between a New York rabbi and ex-IDF soldier Gilad Atzmon?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBuUqPndqg

    Why shouldn't a particular historical event be subject to the same form of analysis (i.e. pro and con) as any other historical event? As Gilad Atzmon says
    "...both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. . . . even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists."

    There is plain evidence that Zionists and Nazis collaborated to bring about a Jewish state.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Wartime_contacts_with_Italy_and_Germany


    I have to catch a plane but other PBers may like to research who Gilad Atzmon is and his writings. He is not someone I would cite as a reputable or honourable source on anything.

    The Holocaust is certainly a historical event. A very well documented one. It is not a religious myth and should not be treated as such. Given that, it is interesting why so much energy is invested by groups of people with a political and/ or racial agenda to deny it.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Plato

    'LabourList @LabourList
    Burnham calls for immediate review into Labour standing candidates in Northern Ireland http://labli.st/1HTrYQ6
    10:02 AM - 18 Aug 2015

    At last Burnham has stumbled on an issue that will really strike s chord with Labour voters.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    @RodCrosby
    'Why shouldn't a particular historical event be subject to the same form of analysis (i.e. pro and con) as any other historical event?'
    It is. That's why claims that the Holocaust never happened simply don't stand up.
    'Gilad Atzmon says
    "...both the Holocaust and World War II should be treated as historical events rather than as religious myth. . . . we must allow people to be atheists."'
    In this country, Holocaust denial is not a criminal offence. It is the deliberate acceptance of a pack of lies, but it is not a criminal offence, and very few people (oddballs like David Cesarani apart) wish it to become so. After all, if we were to say that lying was a criminal offence, all politicians would need locking up. Incidentally, you do know that Gilad Atzmon has declared repeatedly that he is not Jewish any more, that he hates all Jews and that Hitler basically had the right idea about how evil they were, but certainly didn't kill them because he was a jolly nice chap really? He's not a reliable source nor a sensible one on this subject.
    'There is plain evidence that Zionists and Nazis collaborated to bring about a Jewish state.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Wartime_contacts_with_Italy_and_Germany'
    Neither of these are evidence of anything, because both of those (very bad) Wikipedia pages are taken out of context. The Haavara Agreement was not honoured. Jews were allowed to leave, surrendering their money to Goering's men as they did so, but their assets were not permitted to follow. It was, essentially, a con trick to get rid of the Jews and nick all their money (very much in tune with the early Hitler practice of lulling his enemies into a false sense of security so they wouldn't fight back - cf. the Nazi-Catholic concordat). The Lehi opened negotiations with the Nazis, not the other way around, because they thought it would help them defeat the British. The Nazis did not care about the group, or their aims, and although I do not know of any reference made to them by Hitler, it is hard to believe that he would not ultimately have had them all killed if he had been in a position to do so given that he several times said he wanted to kill every last Jew.

    If you want to know more about Holocaust Denial, the massive falsifications of the evidence that underpin it, and the sinister political agendas of those who promote it (leaving aside, for the moment, the question of Israel, which is a separate issue) I recommend Richard Evans, Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial: for a more general look, Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory: or the very excellent internet source, Holocaust Denial on Trial, http://www.hdot.org/
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @cathynewman: So 4 months after Paul Eisen outed himself as a Holocaust denier @Corbyn4Leader attended one of his Deir Yassin group's events 1/2

    @cathynewman: 2/2 yet last night @Corbyn4Leader told me: "had he been a Holocaust denier I would have had nothing to do with him." #c4news
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Cyclefree said:


    I have to catch a plane but other PBers may like to research who Gilad Atzmon is and his writings. He is not someone I would cite as a reputable or honourable source on anything.

    The Holocaust is certainly a historical event. A very well documented one. It is not a religious myth and should not be treated as such. Given that, it is interesting why so much energy is invested by groups of people with a political and/ or racial agenda to deny it.

    It is hard to see how you can think there are no elements of mythologising in the way the Holocaust is treated by history. It is, in general, reported, covered and thought about purely as the Shoah

    Here is the opening paragraph of The Holocaust article on wikipedia.

    The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators.[3] Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million.Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories.[4]


    Note how it focuses primarily on the deaths of Jews, how it only considers the broader Holocaust as being defined as such by "some historians".

    Whatever ones views are on Israel, Zionism, Judaism, the idea that the Holocaust is not mythologised is factually inaccurate. It is and this mythologising is used as a propoganda tool by the Israeli state to justify some quite barbaric human rights abuses (which could actually be justified, in my opinion, in perfectly reasonable political terms).
  • Dair said:

    watford30 said:

    Financier said:

    JEO said:

    It's now been 25 years since Thatcher left power. How many years will it have to be until Labour stop complaining about her? 50 years? A century?

    It is just jealously and fond memories - they wish they had a leader like her!
    They loved her. Brown and Blair clearly basked in the glory of inviting the great lady for tea.
    Blair and Brown paraded Thatcher like a trophy of war, it was disgusting to see her brought so low in her final years.
    I wonder when her illness truly started and surely someone in her team should have persuaded her not to go into bed with Blair. In effect they used her as a smokescreen to try and pretend to be a Continuity government while in the background they were busy Nationalising child rearing and starting a war on Islam they were always destined to lose.
    There's very little I agree with about what Thatcher did, but on Foreign Affairs she had some admirable moments, so the idea she was 'hoodwinked' into supporting the Iraq and Afghanistan war is barking mad. She was always an interventionist, in fact her finest moment for me was calling out Major/Rifkind/Howe over their compliance with Serbian atrocities.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Thanks TP - I've been laying tessa, too, over the past week.

    Only small(ish) stakes, mind. Looks like the game is now over.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    I think it's part of his Crawling For Corbyn strategy since the Jessiah wants to reunite Ireland irregardless of what the Unionists think.
    john_zims said:

    @Plato

    'LabourList @LabourList
    Burnham calls for immediate review into Labour standing candidates in Northern Ireland http://labli.st/1HTrYQ6
    10:02 AM - 18 Aug 2015

    At last Burnham has stumbled on an issue that will really strike s chord with Labour voters.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Pong said:

    Thanks TP - I've been laying tessa, too, over the past week.

    Only small(ish) stakes, mind. Looks like the game is now over.

    Have you got stuck in to the fun of the US primaries or Labour leadership.

    Corbyn and Trump the front runners for the republicans and Labour. If it was an alternate timeline movie plot, it would be rejected for being too far out there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited August 2015
    Dair said:


    It is hard to see how you can think there are no elements of mythologising in the way the Holocaust is treated by history. It is, in general, reported, covered and thought about purely as the Shoah

    Here is the opening paragraph of The Holocaust article on wikipedia.

    The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators.[3] Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million.Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories.[4]


    Note how it focuses primarily on the deaths of Jews, how it only considers the broader Holocaust as being defined as such by "some historians".

    Whatever ones views are on Israel, Zionism, Judaism, the idea that the Holocaust is not mythologised is factually inaccurate. It is and this mythologising is used as a propoganda tool by the Israeli state to justify some quite barbaric human rights abuses (which could actually be justified, in my opinion, in perfectly reasonable political terms).

    That is partly true Dair, and it is something Evans covers in his book on Irving. It also tends to eclipse other Nazi atrocities (e.g. the massacres of hostages in the occupied countries) and those of the victorious allies (the Katyn massacre, or the mass rape of women in Germany by Soviet soldiers). However, even allowing for that, more Jews died in organised mass killings not just than any other group, but of every other group put together - and they were only group to be factory processed and have their belongings, gold teeth and even hair removed to be recycled and sold by the SS for profit. That instantly sets the Jewish experience of the Holocaust apart from those of say, gypsies, homosexuals, or Slavs.

    It is also of course worth noting that 'Holocaust' is of Hebrew origin, which is one reason why it is particularly associated with crimes against the Jews.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    edited August 2015
    Dair said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I have to catch a plane but other PBers may like to research who Gilad Atzmon is and his writings. He is not someone I would cite as a reputable or honourable source on anything.

    The Holocaust is certainly a historical event. A very well documented one. It is not a religious myth and should not be treated as such. Given that, it is interesting why so much energy is invested by groups of people with a political and/ or racial agenda to deny it.

    It is hard to see how you can think there are no elements of mythologising in the way the Holocaust is treated by history. It is, in general, reported, covered and thought about purely as the Shoah

    Here is the opening paragraph of The Holocaust article on wikipedia.

    The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators.[3] Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million.Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories.[4]


    Note how it focuses primarily on the deaths of Jews, how it only considers the broader Holocaust as being defined as such by "some historians".

    Whatever ones views are on Israel, Zionism, Judaism, the idea that the Holocaust is not mythologised is factually inaccurate. It is and this mythologising is used as a propoganda tool by the Israeli state to justify some quite barbaric human rights abuses (which could actually be justified, in my opinion, in perfectly reasonable political terms).
    Dair: there are some who seek to mythologise it. I don't. All countries and peoples have their myths and how those arise is fascinating. But I am interested in facts and, in the case of Holocaust denial, in those who seek to deny well-established facts and their motives for doing so.

    I don't treat Wikipedia as a reliable source for any sort of serious historical or political inquiry, I'm afraid.

    Anyway, am off now. Have a nice day all.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    Why don't you just join the Tory party?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    ydoethur said:

    Dair said:


    It is hard to see how you can think there are no elements of mythologising in the way the Holocaust is treated by history. It is, in general, reported, covered and thought about purely as the Shoah

    Here is the opening paragraph of The Holocaust article on wikipedia.

    The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators.[3] Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million.Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories.[4]


    Note how it focuses primarily on the deaths of Jews, how it only considers the broader Holocaust as being defined as such by "some historians".

    Whatever ones views are on Israel, Zionism, Judaism, the idea that the Holocaust is not mythologised is factually inaccurate. It is and this mythologising is used as a propoganda tool by the Israeli state to justify some quite barbaric human rights abuses (which could actually be justified, in my opinion, in perfectly reasonable political terms).

    That is partly true Dair, and it is something Evans covers in his book on Irving. It also tends to eclipse other Nazi atrocities (e.g. the massacres of hostages in the occupied countries) and those of the victorious allies (the Katyn massacre, or the mass rape of women in Germany by Soviet soldiers). However, even allowing for that, more Jews died in organised mass killings not just than any other group, but of every other group put together - and they were only group to be factory processed and have their belongings, gold teeth and even hair removed to be recycled and sold by the SS for profit. That instantly sets the Jewish experience of the Holocaust apart from those of say, gypsies, homosexuals, or Slavs.

    It is also of course worth noting that 'Holocaust' is of Hebrew origin, which is one reason why it is particularly associated with crimes against the Jews.
    There are plenty of estimates that put the total Slavic deaths as higher than the total Jewish deaths when you include the massacres and killings of civilians by the Einsatzgruppen in disputed territories. A sceptic would wonder if the exclusion of these deaths for being officially part of "The Holocaust" might have a deeper intention.

    It is also my understanding that Rom, gays and Slavs "processed" through the death camps faced the exact same process as Jews.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Dair,

    "Out of interest what is the local perception as to her trial and punishment?"

    I'd better be careful what I say. Mostly, it's either ignored or causes mild amusement. After Shaun the parachutist, she was bound to increase her majority, and she is local.

    We're not talking about stockbroker belt Surrey here. Think Northern lass sticking up for herself.
  • taffys said:

    I have read some very bearish accounts on stocks and the global economy recently.

    If there is a big slump in the next few years, perhaps more people will be willing to listen to Jezza than anybody thinks.

    The bearish comments are not because a recession is expected but because interest rates are finally expected to rise back to normal levels. This means the asset value of stocks and shares will have to fall to enable their dividend % yield to rise to match rising (risk free) interest rates.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    And yet with one single eggception every single person charged or prosecuted for an offence in connection with the Referendum in Scotland was a Loyalist.

    The latest one is going to court on Thursday. Labour MP for St Helens South Marie Rimmer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-33959444

    It seems to be the core tactical mythology in the UK today that where your argument is unpopular you attempt to popularise it by playing the Victim Card. It's all the Loyalists do in Scotland these days and it seems to be all the Blue Labour faction seem to have to play as well.
  • JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    Shocking all these people calling Kendall a moron, useful idiot, terrorist sympathizer, antisemite and Trot. It really should stop.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :lol:

    In all my years watching politics - this summer's LabourFest has been quite the most entertaining. And we've another 3 weeks to go!

    I've now reached the conclusion that all the normal rules have gone out of the window and anything could happen next. Has any Party ever managed to make such a pigs-ear of a leadership election?

    GOP primaries are looking sensible in comparison. And I REALLY don't understand the Trump thing either. I get the entertainment value, but surely someone will say Come On, Let's Get Serious...

    JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    Why don't you just join the Tory party?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Pong said:

    Thanks TP - I've been laying tessa, too, over the past week.

    Only small(ish) stakes, mind. Looks like the game is now over.

    Biblically you may have to run faster to succeed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    Doesn't that include ballots such as:

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    4 Burnham

    Which would be invalid ?

    I think you can get to 80 if you include both

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham

    &

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham
    4 Cooper

    as seperate choices.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    Plato said:

    I think it's part of his Crawling For Corbyn strategy since the Jessiah wants to reunite Ireland irregardless of what the Unionists think.

    john_zims said:

    @Plato

    'LabourList @LabourList
    Burnham calls for immediate review into Labour standing candidates in Northern Ireland http://labli.st/1HTrYQ6
    10:02 AM - 18 Aug 2015

    At last Burnham has stumbled on an issue that will really strike s chord with Labour voters.

    You've got the wrong end of this admittedly abstruse debate, Plato. The people who don't want Labour candidates in Northern Ireland are the nationalist SDLP, since it would split the left-of-centre vote. I suspect this is also Corbyn's view. The people who do want it are unionist Labour supporters, who point out plaintively that they are actually in the only place on the planet where they're not allowed to be active.

    Both are sort of correct, but in the last couple of decades the Labour view has been to roll our eyes and say life is complicated enough without getting into competing in Ulster politics. (In the past, Labour did compete there, and got respectable votes though I think we never won anything.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    edited August 2015
    Dair said:


    There are plenty of estimates that put the total Slavic deaths as higher than the total Jewish deaths when you include the massacres and killings of civilians by the Einsatzgruppen in disputed territories. A sceptic would wonder if the exclusion of these deaths for being officially part of "The Holocaust" might have a deeper intention.

    It is also my understanding that Rom, gays and Slavs "processed" through the death camps faced the exact same process as Jews.

    If you include total deaths from war, yes, the Slavic count is higher (since it includes 20-30 million in the Soviet Union, more than the entire Jewish population of the world, it would be hard for it to be otherwise)! Otherwise, it would not be. That is why I very carefully chose the phrase 'organised mass killings.' Don't forget also some double counting is involved - 1 million of those massacred as part of Barbarossa were Jews, but they were also Poles/Lithuanians/Latvians etc.

    However, on the second point I have to disagree with you. Those who were processed through the camps did have different processes. Jews and Slavs were kept separately at Auschwitz, and worked in different ways. That is why it is two camps - Auschwitz (where the Poles were kept) and Birkenau (where the Jews mostly worked and died, although some were in the main part of Auschwitz earlier on and there are still gas chambers there).

    Moreover, the Slavs were mostly prisoners of one sort or another, so mostly young men, army officers, opponents of the Nazis, Catholic priests etc. The Jews were an entire race called in to be either killed, or worked more or less to death and then killed. It's not comparable. Gypsies were also caught in the net, but were small in number compared to the Jews and pursued much less aggressively. (Incidentally, Hitler had initially admired the Romany communities as an example of a 'pure' race insulated from outside influences. Then, he was told that they were intermarrying with Germans and performed a 180 degree turn.)
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    If you cast all preferences you get the 24 mentioned earlier:

    1 2 3 4
    1 2 4 3
    1 3 2 4
    1 3 4 2
    1 4 2 3
    1 4 3 2

    2 1 3 4
    2 1 4 3
    2 3 1 4
    2 3 4 1
    2 4 1 3
    2 4 3 1

    3 1 2 4
    3 1 4 2
    3 2 1 4
    3 2 4 1
    3 4 1 2
    3 4 2 1

    4 1 2 3
    4 1 3 2
    4 2 1 3
    4 2 3 1
    4 3 1 2
    4 3 2 1

    Can't see how you can get to 340.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,756

    JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    Shocking all these people calling Kendall a moron, useful idiot, terrorist sympathizer, antisemite and Trot. It really should stop.
    Lol!

    Well, sniggered inwardly anyway.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited August 2015
    john_zims said:

    @Plato

    'LabourList @LabourList
    Burnham calls for immediate review into Labour standing candidates in Northern Ireland http://labli.st/1HTrYQ6
    10:02 AM - 18 Aug 2015

    At last Burnham has stumbled on an issue that will really strike s chord with Labour voters.

    Burnham is only calling for a review and not expressing his own opinion. Probably still waiting to hear what Corbyn's view is.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I've been reading a few snippets about Comrade Corbyn and this quote struck me as a bit weird. His leadership will be interesting if that's an example of his passive aggressive style.

    “He’s a cold fish, and he never argues back. He just says, ‘Ooh, sorry, comrade’.” That was from his former election agent.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    I think you can get to 80 if you include both

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham

    &

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham
    4 Cooper

    as seperate choices.

    If you do that you get to 64: 4*3*2*1 + 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,547
    ydoethur said:


    That is partly true Dair, and it is something Evans covers in his book on Irving. It also tends to eclipse other Nazi atrocities (e.g. the massacres of hostages in the occupied countries) and those of the victorious allies (the Katyn massacre, or the mass rape of women in Germany by Soviet soldiers). However, even allowing for that, more Jews died in organised mass killings not just than any other group, but of every other group put together - and they were only group to be factory processed and have their belongings, gold teeth and even hair removed to be recycled and sold by the SS for profit. That instantly sets the Jewish experience of the Holocaust apart from those of say, gypsies, homosexuals, or Slavs.

    It is also of course worth noting that 'Holocaust' is of Hebrew origin, which is one reason why it is particularly associated with crimes against the Jews.

    It's certainly arguable that what happened to the Romany peoples of Eastern Europe was just as bad as it was to the Jewish peoples, even if the total numbers were less (albeit of a much smaller population). The Nazis treated them with just as much disdain as the Jews - and even had special compounds in the camps to separate them off from other prisoners.

    There is still a great deal of racism against the Romanies, especially in Eastern Europe. It took decades for the German government to even admit that their killings were racially motivated, and to start paying compensation.

    We should not ignore millions of victims of the camps just because they were the 'wrong' religion, and that is sadly happening with this concentration on the Jewish men, women and children who died in the camps.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited August 2015
    Plato said:

    From Dan's article - this is bang on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11808433/Why-are-Labour-Party-members-putting-up-with-the-Corbyn-cultists-claptrap.html

    We’ve now reached the stage where the Corbyn cultists are effectively arguing that membership of the Labour party at any point over the past 30 years represents the ultimate act of treachery towards that party. ...............
    "The genuine heirs of the Suffragettes and the Chartists and the Tolpuddle Martyrs shouldn’t be cowed by people who view a bar of soap as a tool of capitalist oppression"

    Soap dodgers?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Just how stupid are Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper in demanding each other drop out to oppose Corbyn?

    The system is Alternative Vote. Any Cooper supporter that prefers Burnham to Corbyn, or any Burnham supporter that prefers Cooper to Corbyn will already have their votes totted up against Corbyn in the final round. So there is absolutely no advantage to either dropping out.

    The only effect that calling for each other to drop achieves is for Burnham supporters to like Cooper less, and Cooper supporters to like Burnham less, which will result in some of them putting Corbyn second, whereas they would have previously put him third.

    I do pity the choices of Labour supporters: it's the ideologue against the incompetents.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    If you cast all preferences you get the 24 mentioned earlier:

    1 2 3 4
    1 2 4 3
    1 3 2 4
    1 3 4 2
    1 4 2 3
    1 4 3 2

    2 1 3 4
    2 1 4 3
    2 3 1 4
    2 3 4 1
    2 4 1 3
    2 4 3 1

    3 1 2 4
    3 1 4 2
    3 2 1 4
    3 2 4 1
    3 4 1 2
    3 4 2 1

    4 1 2 3
    4 1 3 2
    4 2 1 3
    4 2 3 1
    4 3 1 2
    4 3 2 1

    Can't see how you can get to 340.

    If it isn't a requirement to cast a vote for all candidates, i.e. you can vote for just one, or just two or just three as well as all four then the number of combinations rises dramatically. You can brute force the solution by listing all permutations but there is a formula for calculating the answer to such a problem which is much easier.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    If you cast all preferences you get the 24 mentioned earlier:

    1 2 3 4
    1 2 4 3
    1 3 2 4
    1 3 4 2
    1 4 2 3
    1 4 3 2

    2 1 3 4
    2 1 4 3
    2 3 1 4
    2 3 4 1
    2 4 1 3
    2 4 3 1

    3 1 2 4
    3 1 4 2
    3 2 1 4
    3 2 4 1
    3 4 1 2
    3 4 2 1

    4 1 2 3
    4 1 3 2
    4 2 1 3
    4 2 3 1
    4 3 1 2
    4 3 2 1

    Can't see how you can get to 340.

    It's very slightly more complex than that, because you are missing:

    4 - - -
    4 1 - -
    4 2 - -
    4 3 -
    4 1 2
    4 1 3

    I.e., you need to remember that people can abstain at any round. But we can't simply treat that as '5' (i.e. 5 x 4 x 3) because you can't have anything "after" an abstention (4 - 3 2 isn't allowed).

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Pulpstar said:

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    Doesn't that include ballots such as:

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    4 Burnham

    Which would be invalid ?

    I think you can get to 80 if you include both

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham

    &

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham
    4 Cooper

    as seperate choices.
    You have the four-candidate ballots, which is 4*3*2*1 = 24
    You have the three candidate ballots, which, if you count as different, is 4*3*2 = 24
    You have the two candidate ballots, which is 4 * 3 = 12
    You have the one candidate ballots, which is 4

    24+24+12+4 = 64. Of course the three candidate ballot is not a different vote, so the total is 40, as TissuePrice said.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    Financier said:
    'Kendall fears the phenomenon of the Cybernats has spread to the rest of the UK, with supporters of Jeremy Corbyn increasingly intolerant and vitriolic towards others in the Labour Party, particularly online. “I’ve met a lot of party members who are really worried about speaking out, worried about what abuse might be hurled at them.”'

    It is almost as if the tactics long embraced by the left, of silencing, demonising and delegitimising any views that did not chime with accceptable left-wing opinion have created norms of debate that lead to intellectual ruin. It's strange how years of simply rejecting the opinions of opponents as being "close-minded", "reactionary", "little Englander", "xenophobic", "Tory", "heartless" rather than engaging with argument result in ideological groupthink and an unwillingness to consider other points of view, isn't it?
    Labour leadership candidates reaping what they sowed? Karma.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    JEO said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Tory supporter shows off his three ballot papers for Labour leader

    Dan Hodges ‏@DPJHodges

    Dan Hodges to send off 3 ballots, one for Jeremy, one for Yvette and one for Liz maybe ?
    I'm not a mathematician, so I'll ask - how many ballot papers would you need to vote for all possible combinations in the race? Is it sixteen, or is it more?

    Either way, I don't think three would be enough for him...
    It's just 4! isn't it? So 24.
    Arguably not: you don't have to give further preferences to vote validly. So it's 4*3*2 + 4*3 + 4 = 40.
    Rather more than that, I think. Isn't the task is to count the number of ordered subsets of the set {1,2,3.4} ? There are four elements so the formula would be 4(4^4 -1) /4-1. So the answer would be 340, or 339 if you want to discount the possibility of an abstention (the empty set).
    Doesn't that include ballots such as:

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    4 Burnham

    Which would be invalid ?

    I think you can get to 80 if you include both

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham

    &

    1 Corbyn
    2 Kendall
    3 Burnham
    4 Cooper

    as seperate choices.
    I don't think so. Corbyn, Kendal, Burnham in that order would be a perfectly valid vote, as would Corbyn, Kendal or just Corbyn. Or any other permutation of the names. How many ways can you arrange four names in any order, three fo the four names in any order, two of the names in any order plus the trivial just one name or the four? That seems to be the question, which in mathematical terms is just asking for the number of ordered subsets of the set {Corbyn, Kendal, Burham, Cooper}.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    As Douglas Adams knew, the answer is 42.

    You have:

    1 abstention
    1 spoiled ballot paper
    4 first preferences only
    4 x 3 first and second preferences only
    4 x 3 x 2 first, second, third preferences (completing the fourth preference makes no difference so cannot be distinguished from this case)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,769
    @JosiasJessop

    I don't think anyone is 'ignoring' them, although Dair, again, does have a point when he says that very often there is an over-concentration on the Jews - the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington has been criticised for that. (Conversely, the Poles have been criticised for spending more time remembering the Catholic Poles who died at Auschwitz than the Jews, including the Polish Jews.)

    The key point here was around Holocaust Denial, where a simple fact of politics comes in - those who are Holocaust Deniers are invariably anti-semites who are deliberately lying for political and racial reasons. They may be anti-Israeli as well - in fact they are likely to be, for the simple reason that if they hate Jews, they're not going to love the idea of a Jewish state. But above all, they are racist.

    It is perfectly legitimate to point out there are other aspects of the Holocaust, not merely the massacre of the Jews - the Roma are a good example. That is in no way racism. But nor is it Holocaust denial. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the state of Israel, and can be done rationally on the basis of some of its numerous dubious actions. That does not amount to anti-semitism. Holocaust denial is, plainly and simply, denying that the Holocaust happened (or, in rare cases, denying the Jews were affected or suggesting they somehow organised it, which require equal contortions). That's an altogether different matter, and does depend on massive falsification of the historical evidence which its practitioners must know they were doing.

    What we have in Jeremy Corbyn is a man, who either did know, or should have known, that he was associating with a Holocaust denier, denying that he knew and changing the dates of their meetings to bolster his case. That calls not his judgement - that was already in doubt - but his personal integrity into question. That has been my key point all the way through and this business inspired by Rod Crosby's post is a bit of a side-track.

    Hope that clears matters up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Given Andy4Jeremy has NEVER rebelled on a vote and prides himself on it enough to brag about his credentials in his own leadership speech...

    john_zims said:

    @Plato

    'LabourList @LabourList
    Burnham calls for immediate review into Labour standing candidates in Northern Ireland http://labli.st/1HTrYQ6
    10:02 AM - 18 Aug 2015

    At last Burnham has stumbled on an issue that will really strike s chord with Labour voters.

    Burnham is only calling for a review and not expressing his own opinion. Probably still waiting to hear what Corbyn's view is.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Oooh, this is interesting. Labour now nearly as toxic as the Tories. Corbyn's victory might spell *CROSSOVER*.

    https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/633603004290232321
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

    That sounds like a late line-up of a 70s rock band.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387



    If it isn't a requirement to cast a vote for all candidates, i.e. you can vote for just one, or just two or just three as well as all four then the number of combinations rises dramatically. You can brute force the solution by listing all permutations but there is a formula for calculating the answer to such a problem which is much easier.


    Sorry should have been clearer.

    I was just doing the exhaustive options, as a demonstration that 320 looked unlikely.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    antifrank said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

    That sounds like a late line-up of a 70s rock band.
    Yes.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Surely, Burnham, Burnham, Burnham and Burnham is the best option for someone on here? :love:
    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    taffys said:

    I have read some very bearish accounts on stocks and the global economy recently.

    If there is a big slump in the next few years, perhaps more people will be willing to listen to Jezza than anybody thinks.

    The numbers out of China are pretty miserable right now. Similarly, resource exporters (Russia, South America) which had been engines of growth are struggling as the price of oil, copper, etc., has collapsed.

    The former is probably bearish for the world economy, the latter is almost certainly bullish. Essentially, the period from 2000 to 2014 was like 1968 to 1972: ever rising commodity prices meant that a larger and larger share of output from developed countries was sent to resource exporters. As commodity prices look like they have well and truly rolled over, we can hope that the period from 2015 to 2030 will look like the 1980s and 1990s, where resource importing countries benefit from lower and lower import bills.

    (If you look at the charts for GDP growth in - say - Brazil from 1967 to 1981, then they look scarily similar to the 2000s. GDP per capita increased 7x or so in the first commodity boom, and 5x in the second.)
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Really {1,2,2,4} ought to be a valid AV ballot. I don't suppose it is - though it might be counted in round one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Price, probably due to Brown, Miliband and possibly Corbyn being in charge.

    Labour has a strategic advantage when it comes to niceness, in the same way the Conservatives have a strategic advantage on competence. Plus, UKIP may have helped detoxify the Conservatives as many rightwingers left them for the purples.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Plato said:

    Surely, Burnham, Burnham, Burnham and Burnham is the best option for someone on here? :love:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

    In honour of @HYUFD

    Once, twice, three times a Burnham

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFJcJO3RH4

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

    You are quite right. I was indeed and therefore in this context talking bollocks.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    Really {1,2,2,4} ought to be a valid AV ballot. I don't suppose it is - though it might be counted in round one.

    Actually a decent question. Do you at least get your first round counted?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Must admit, I still have a niggling doubt.

    Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Ouch.
    Labour is now as toxic in the South - the South East (outside London), South West and East Anglia – as the Tories are in the North. 42 per cent of voters in the South say they will never vote Labour and 43 per cent of voters in the North say they will never vote Conservative. The full significance of this for Labour lies in the fact that it must win 27 seats in the South to gain a majority of one on a uniform national swing.

    The regional dimension to Labour’s toxicity is compounded among the over 60s – the age group most likely to vote. 45 per cent say they will never vote Labour and just 30 per cent say they will never vote Conservative. Unless Labour detoxifies its brand with the grey vote it will find it all but impossible to win a majority again.

    Oooh, this is interesting. Labour now nearly as toxic as the Tories. Corbyn's victory might spell *CROSSOVER*.

    ttps://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/633603004290232321

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,963
    Plato said:

    I've been reading a few snippets about Comrade Corbyn and this quote struck me as a bit weird. His leadership will be interesting if that's an example of his passive aggressive style.

    “He’s a cold fish, and he never argues back. He just says, ‘Ooh, sorry, comrade’.” That was from his former election agent.

    Is that an "Ooh, sorry, comrade" whilst making a gesture of clutching a handbag to the midriff type "Ooh"? I would look at him in a different light if so!
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    Oooh, this is interesting. Labour now nearly as toxic as the Tories. Corbyn's victory might spell *CROSSOVER*.

    https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/633603004290232321

    That's a brutal piece of polling.

    You've spent 5 years whingeing about how unfair everything is and managed to go backwards in people's minds.

    You might as well have joined the Tory party!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    Must admit, I still have a niggling doubt.

    Are Labour really going for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up toe Russia and has friends in Hamas?

    Yes, they are. But it's doubts like that which have kept the Corbyn price unrealistically high.

    I suppose more accurately, we should say that it's Labour's affiliates and sign-ups that are going to go for a unilaterialist republican who thinks we should leave NATO, snuggle up to Russia and has friends in Hamas, but it's likely that the full membership won't be far behind and he'd still have been elected under the old rules.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    It's been a while since this was posted - so thought some of our newer posters would enjoy it. TED Talk from Jonathon Haidt about why we're liberal or conservative. It's a great short trip around the mindset of both groups and why they are so distinctive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato said:

    Surely, Burnham, Burnham, Burnham and Burnham is the best option for someone on here? :love:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Hurstllama

    You are including ballots such as {Burnham,Burnham,Burnham, Cooper} with your 340 though.

    In honour of @HYUFD

    Once, twice, three times a Burnham

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFJcJO3RH4

    I actually put Liz second then Jez and Yvette last going 3 Times for Andy was a bit much even for me
Sign In or Register to comment.