Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anticipating Corbyn’s second mandate

135

Comments

  • Mr. B2, Labour had Twitter and Russell Brand on-side last time too.

    I think a lot of things are trending against the Jezbollah, though. People are sick of being called racist for worrying about immigration, and aren't willing to let an orthodoxy go unchallenged.

    For all the mockery of not believing experts, it turns out the economic forecasts were about as accurate as my weekend tips this F1 season.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    There's plain, salted or sweet: can anyone recommend any other coatings for popcorn?

    They sell it either salted, or BBQ or Cheese flavoured here.... no I don't recommend it. The best popcorn out of a packet is clearly Werther's Original Caramel, but it costs an arm and a leg to get here :(
  • Mr. Herdson, please report to the creche for your re-education on The Importance of Loving Chairman Corbyn.

    I'm a Bradford City fan. I have enough lost causes in my life to enjoyably waste emotion on.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, indeed.

    Whilst Labour has, impressively, had four ever-worsening leaders in a row, it won't last forever. With Lib Dems weak and UKIP uncertain (we'll see how James does), Labour will likely maintain its position as one of the big two parties.

    Edited extra bit: slight miswording. Three worsening leaders, over the last four there's been continual decline.

    I agree the voting system will shore up Labour despite its travails, but the point of the article was more that politics and political opinions are becoming unpredictable; that it is possible to prompt major changes in attitudes and policy without being in power (cf Farage, Trump, insurgent parties across Europe), and that Corbyn has an army of young enthused activists but the Tories do not. The article also observed that the political environment is already forcing May towards left-type proposals (workers on boards etc,) despite the Tories being effectively unchallenged.

    I took the bottom line to be that, despite Corbyn's chances of electoral victory being low, the state of things should be giving the Government a lot to think, and worry, about.
    But the flip side is that the Tories will get credit for eg workers on boards because such ideas were taken up by the Tories themselves - and not the result of pressure from a (currently invisible) Opposition.
  • On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    As always, an interesting piece from David (for which, as always, many thanks).

    [snip]

    I'd hope not to be writing from a Conservative perspective in the leader.
    Corbynistas of the world beware. You never know if that seemingly balanced, thoughtful piece might be from a TORY, as they might be insidious. Be vigilant.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited September 2016

    kle4 said:

    This champion business does seem 6 of 1, half a dozen of another - from her own account admittedly, but he also accepted a caution apparently- but as the question was put is I think the essence of reasonableness : would people react the same way if the gender of the MP was different. I always ask with 'scandals' whether Tories or labour or whoever would be so outraged about things if it was one of their own, and this is a similar question.

    Indeed.

    Though there is another factor here, and that is her role. Her own personal experience (which she seemed rather reticent to mention in the past) shows that abuse is not just from men towards women, but is often much more complex.

    She needs to speak not only for the estimated 4.5 million female victims, but also the estimated 2.2 million male victims.

    Yet I find her comments she has given wrt her role (as reported in the press at least) to be much simpler than that. Women are victims. Men are the abusers.

    At best, it makes her a hypocrite.

    Much better if, on being given the role, she had been open about it and much more nuanced about what is a massively complex topic which has many causes.
    I think Champion needs to go, and that LAbour's sexist establishment needs to be put back in its bubble (the point about gender bias is correct eg see how Siobhan McDonagh attempted to triangulate educational underachievement by boys as a subset of a class issue not a gender issue in a debate this month).

    However the altercation between Champion and Hubbie was in 2007, which was the time when people were being conned into accepting Police Cautions under assurances of "slap on the wrist to deal with it quickly". THere may well be an alelemt of that here.

    IT is fortunate that she is an MP and not a teacher or a nurse, since her career may well have been over in that case.
  • IanB2 said:

    Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.

    Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.

    It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.

    After all, who can tell when she will snap?

    And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.

    (The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
    Not an Archers listener, then?
    Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.

    Thus somewhat proving my point.

    That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
    Titchener.

    You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
    I've not listened in the last couple of weeks (last during the trial), but have it on catch-up upstairs (I'm sad enough to listen to it sometimes on podcast when I'm out and about). I've just read that she was granted custody.

    Is that not correct?
    I believe so.

    It's a soap opera, they're not going to spend months building up a character's creepy bastardishness just to end up with a 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' scenario. Insofar as there are many real life cases resembling the Titchener story, I guess the mother getting custody is probably a realistic outcome.

    I'm sure the utterly predictable and worthy BBC at several points must have addressed the statistically much, much smaller incidence of female on male abuse that seems to preoccupy a certain type of PB male.

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    Move on 15 years, tories exhausted and scandal ridden. Young radical left Labour leader with all the cunning and charisma of Blair. All to easy to see how it could happen.

    In fact Blairisms greatest success was to hide its Frankfurt School extreme left nature under a cloak of neo-conservative economics.
    The necessary plurality of the public is not going to vote for a mass wave of nationalisation, sumptuary taxes, unilateral disarmament and money printing a l'outrance no matter now nice the smile of the person attempting to sell those policies. The Tories will remain in power until somebody with a more appealing message come along, regardless of how tired and jaded they become.

    To put it another way, if you had to sit on a choice of one of two chairs - a knackered old sofa with stuffing coming out of it and half the springs broken, or a sharpened iron spike - then you would choose the busted sofa, regardless of how often you were given the chance to change your mind and how uncomfortable the sofa was, now wouldn't you?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958


    I'd hope not to be writing from a Conservative perspective in the leader. In terms of both analysis and prediction, I think any writer does themselves a disservice if trying to be partisan, to spin or simply to fail to counter any innate bias. Events won't work according to a conservative, socialist, Marxist or liberal viewpoint and one loses credibility if trying to Pangloss a take. I'd rather keep my credibility and do the best to predict things as they'll be - and that means trying to be as impartial as possible.

    One of the great benefits of this political betting site is that it obliges those who post to confront and acknowledge those issues which are going to harm their party's prospects. It might be painful to acknowledge that something is happening to "your" side, but you can at least make some money from seeing that problem early!

  • IanB2 said:

    Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.

    Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.

    It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.

    After all, who can tell when she will snap?

    And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.

    (The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
    Not an Archers listener, then?
    Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.

    Thus somewhat proving my point.

    That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
    Titchener.

    You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
    I've not listened in the last couple of weeks (last during the trial), but have it on catch-up upstairs (I'm sad enough to listen to it sometimes on podcast when I'm out and about). I've just read that she was granted custody.

    Is that not correct?
    I believe so.

    It's a soap opera, they're not going to spend months building up a character's creepy bastardishness just to end up with a 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' scenario. Insofar as there are many real life cases resembling the Titchener story, I guess the mother getting custody is probably a realistic outcome.

    I'm sure the utterly predictable and worthy BBC at several points must have addressed the statistically much, much smaller incidence of female on male abuse that seems to preoccupy a certain type of PB male.
    What 'type' is that, pray tell?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2016

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    You'd think they'd have enough money stashed away in those "off shore" accounts to keep the show in the road...
  • Mr. Divvie, 'much much smaller' is inaccurate. Estimates vary but 35-45% female-on-male domestic abuse is a common range, and one Canadian study (last year, I think) had it as an outright majority.

    Compare the funding for refuges, charities and so forth, and the breakdown is nowhere near proportional. A certain type of PB male is interested in equality before the law and appropriate funding for domestic violence victims.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Morning all.

    Cheers Mr Herdson, never thought I’d see Einstein and Corbyn quoted in the same sentence.

    You're welcome. Next week, I'll be comparing him to Julius Caesar.
    Stabbed in the back by a plot of people who used to be his friends?
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Ummm

    Labour

    She should be sacked.

    Can you imagine the uproar if it was a Conservative, male minister for domestic violence with such a history?

    She's also said very little about domestic violence against men: DV against women seems to be her priority. Now we know why ...


    For once we have a spokesperson with an interest and knowledge of their portfolio...
    ...
    As her husband also accepted a caution, it seems to have been six of one and a half dozen of the other.
    You miss the point. Such 'excuses' are never accepted when men are the perpetrators. And we also have only her side of the story: her ex-husband has yet to tell his side.

    Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but it, and its causes, are often multifaceted. Its about time politicians and the media understood that and stopped making women 'victims' and men 'perpetrators', especially when the reverse is often true. Or, as in this case, seemingly both.

    Though it should be said that there have been alleged cases where the woman has been beating a man, and the police arrest the man. You know, because they're obviously the cause.
    We do know that both sides accepted the caution and therefore their guilt.
    One thing TSE has successfully taught me: never accept a police caution.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    Move on 15 years, tories exhausted and scandal ridden. Young radical left Labour leader with all the cunning and charisma of Blair. All to easy to see how it could happen.

    In fact Blairisms greatest success was to hide its Frankfurt School extreme left nature under a cloak of neo-conservative economics.
    The necessary plurality of the public is not going to vote for a mass wave of nationalisation, sumptuary taxes, unilateral disarmament and money printing a l'outrance no matter now nice the smile of the person attempting to sell those policies. The Tories will remain in power until somebody with a more appealing message come along, regardless of how tired and jaded they become.

    To put it another way, if you had to sit on a choice of one of two chairs - a knackered old sofa with stuffing coming out of it and half the springs broken, or a sharpened iron spike - then you would choose the busted sofa, regardless of how often you were given the chance to change your mind and how uncomfortable the sofa was, now wouldn't you?
    I wouldnt, but plenty did in 1997 not realising the glitzy new sofa cover hid the sharpened spikes underneath.

    Some of which spikes are still Tory policy.
  • On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    Move on 15 years, tories exhausted and scandal ridden. Young radical left Labour leader with all the cunning and charisma of Blair. All to easy to see how it could happen.

    In fact Blairisms greatest success was to hide its Frankfurt School extreme left nature under a cloak of neo-conservative economics.
    The necessary plurality of the public is not going to vote for a mass wave of nationalisation, sumptuary taxes, unilateral disarmament and money printing a l'outrance no matter now nice the smile of the person attempting to sell those policies. The Tories will remain in power until somebody with a more appealing message come along, regardless of how tired and jaded they become.

    To put it another way, if you had to sit on a choice of one of two chairs - a knackered old sofa with stuffing coming out of it and half the springs broken, or a sharpened iron spike - then you would choose the busted sofa, regardless of how often you were given the chance to change your mind and how uncomfortable the sofa was, now wouldn't you?
    90% of the time you are right; it's the unforeseen 10% scenario we should worry about. When times get bad it is surprising what people will vote for.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2016

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    edited September 2016
    Mr G,

    "Think he is more ginger beer , will surely be going POP today."

    Surely not a homophobic comment? That's the trouble with being right-on, you must have to censor your own words. But I'm not accusing you of that crime, sir.

    Edit: For information ... ""Top Gear" presenter Jeremy Clarkson was criticised by the media watchdog on Monday for describing a car as "very ginger beer", rhyming slang for "queer".

    In a written ruling, Ofcom said the phrase could offend homosexuals and should not have been used."
  • On the Tories, it is actually deeply conservative that the Conservatives prioritise remaining in office above all else.

    If you want to conserve as much as you can, and have a preference for stability, gradual reform rather than radical change, then you must remain in office as much as you can.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    malcolmg said:
    They will come a cropper sooner than they think

    Unlikely. The Tories can only be replaced once there's an alternative available that a necessary plurality of the electorate feels comfortable voting for. That ain't the far Left.

    It's more likely that we are at the start of another Thatcher/Major type cycle, and that the Conservatives might not be thrown out until 2030 or 2035.


  • Im sure there were unpleasant incidents but the thrust of that article is that such incidents are being systematically exagerrated in number and severity for both doctrinal and troughing reasons.

    I seem to (perhaps incorrectly) recall that you were one of several folk in the the lead up to the Indy referndyum who constantly referred to violence and intimdation by nasty Nats, mainly centering on bricks through Bettertogether supporting windows. When challenged to provide actual reports of said bricks, you altered your view of the intimidation to being just the implict threat of bricks that was cowing the poor, quivering Unionists.

    Apologies if that wasn't you.
  • According to Sky, turnout this year is 77.6%.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    .
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2016

    malcolmg said:
    They will come a cropper sooner than they think
    Unlikely. The Tories can only be replaced once there's an alternative available that a necessary plurality of the electorate feels comfortable voting for. That ain't the far Left.

    It's more likely that we are at the start of another Thatcher/Major type cycle, and that the Conservatives might not be thrown out until 2030 or 2035.



    The Tories could split over Brexit.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Chris Ship
    So #LabourLeadership turnout 77% of a selectorate of 660,000. Means 508,000 people voted. That's sure to strengthen Corbyn (if he wins!)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,770

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    While it's something I absolutely dread, it's entirely possible that we have a major economic problem between now and 2020.

    Imagine, for a second, that we need to close our current account deficit through raising the savings rate. (A balanced current account equates to about an 10% gross savings rate, we're at 3.3%.) Closing that in a two year period would involve a massive recession, with unemployment above 10%, and maybe a 5% contraction in GDP.

    Under those circumstances, could the British people elect Jeremy Corbyn, just as the Greeks elected Tsipras? Yes, they could.

    It scares the living daylights out of me, but it is an entirely possible (if fortunately unlikely) scenario.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    PlatoSaid said:

    Chris Ship
    So #LabourLeadership turnout 77% of a selectorate of 660,000. Means 508,000 people voted. That's sure to strengthen Corbyn (if he wins!)

    Go Jezza!!!!
  • Mr. Divvie, 'much much smaller' is inaccurate. Estimates vary but 35-45% female-on-male domestic abuse is a common range, and one Canadian study (last year, I think) had it as an outright majority.

    Compare the funding for refuges, charities and so forth, and the breakdown is nowhere near proportional. A certain type of PB male is interested in equality before the law and appropriate funding for domestic violence victims.

    That's the problem. I hope I've made it clear that I abhor all domestic violence; my concern is that all the attention is going in one direction.

    Perhaps Mr Divvie should read the following:
    http://tinyurl.com/jy7aunh
    There were 6.5% of women and 2.8% of men who reported having experienced any type of partner abuse in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.1 million female victims and 500,000 male victims.

    Overall, 27.1% of women and 13.2% of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims.
    At the moment, politicians are not giving male victims a voice because they are concentrating on female victims. That is an injustice. Worse, they are making out that men are the abusers, and women the victims.

    The figures show that it is far more complex than that.

    It would be nice if Champion has used her experience to highlight those nuances. Sadly, she has not.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    BBC2 about to start coverage of today's big story...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Indigo said:

    There's plain, salted or sweet: can anyone recommend any other coatings for popcorn?

    They sell it either salted, or BBQ or Cheese flavoured here.... no I don't recommend it. The best popcorn out of a packet is clearly Werther's Original Caramel, but it costs an arm and a leg to get here :(
    I'm fond of Butterkist toffee popcorn - reminds me of cinema as a kid. But it does persist between teeth for ages.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IanB2 said:

    The necessary plurality of the public is not going to vote for a mass wave of nationalisation, sumptuary taxes, unilateral disarmament and money printing a l'outrance no matter now nice the smile of the person attempting to sell those policies. The Tories will remain in power until somebody with a more appealing message come along, regardless of how tired and jaded they become.

    To put it another way, if you had to sit on a choice of one of two chairs - a knackered old sofa with stuffing coming out of it and half the springs broken, or a sharpened iron spike - then you would choose the busted sofa, regardless of how often you were given the chance to change your mind and how uncomfortable the sofa was, now wouldn't you?

    90% of the time you are right; it's the unforeseen 10% scenario we should worry about. When times get bad it is surprising what people will vote for.
    I think you and I will have to agree to differ. I envisage no plausible scenario in which the far Left can win a General Election: imagining such a thing requires one to entertain a dystopian future, such as a societal collapse, or the aftermath of a major and protracted war.

    If Labour goes off to the radical Left and stays there, then there will be no change of Government until it is marginalised sufficiently for another party to take its place in the Big Two, as happened when Labour displaced the Liberals.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    Nick, I'm not sure that's something you should really throw in my direction. I mean, its hard for me to respond because you'd just call it 'personal snidery', but you might remember something you said about stalkers?

    Pot, kettle, black and all that. But I daresay you'd just call that snide.

    Still, to get to the point do you think Champion's position is tenable given the revelation?

    I've posted here every day for about 10 years, and I'm sure I sometimes slip up - I just think you do it more consistently. I don't remember what I said about stalkers, but I don't think in general people would call me snide, while rather a lot of people have had your snidier edge. Never mind, was just a thought to consider if you want.

    I'm a big fan of Sarah Champion for unrelated reasons (she is quite exceptionally helpful on animal welfare issues, which are part of her brief) so quite biased. I don't know anything about the case discussed on this thread, but based on what's been published (and I agree it's based on her account) it sounds like a domestic squabble rather than a case of worrying violence. The police told them both to calm down and they accepted cautions (maybe unwisely). I wouldn't think this was very worrying, and would also think that if she was the male in the case. But in general I think it's hard to judge marital behaviour from press coverage - hell, it's hard to judge couples who we know personally.

    In general, for simplicity, we tend to lump quite different things together - someone who tells a joke about Asians is portrayed in the same general light as an apologist for the Holocaust, etc. I think that domestic violence is extremely serious, but I wouldn't regard a brief wrestling match over a water-colour as really coming under that heading, and see it more as part of the pattern that MPs are expected to set impossibly high standards of restraint, taste and decorum right back into their history before they even became MPs.
  • rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    While it's something I absolutely dread, it's entirely possible that we have a major economic problem between now and 2020.

    Imagine, for a second, that we need to close our current account deficit through raising the savings rate. (A balanced current account equates to about an 10% gross savings rate, we're at 3.3%.) Closing that in a two year period would involve a massive recession, with unemployment above 10%, and maybe a 5% contraction in GDP.

    Under those circumstances, could the British people elect Jeremy Corbyn, just as the Greeks elected Tsipras? Yes, they could.

    It scares the living daylights out of me, but it is an entirely possible (if fortunately unlikely) scenario.
    Nah, us Brits aren't that stupid.

    I seem to be in a minority who seem to think the mass of our population actually have their heads screwed-on, and possess quite a bit of common sense.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Linking two of today's thread conversations, my partner once told me (on an Austrian holiday) that buying a cuckoo clock would constitute domestic abuse.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    IanB2 said:

    BBC2 about to start coverage of today's big story...

    Oooooooooo....

    *Heads for telly*
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016



    Im sure there were unpleasant incidents but the thrust of that article is that such incidents are being systematically exagerrated in number and severity for both doctrinal and troughing reasons.

    I seem to (perhaps incorrectly) recall that you were one of several folk in the the lead up to the Indy referndyum who constantly referred to violence and intimdation by nasty Nats, mainly centering on bricks through Bettertogether supporting windows. When challenged to provide actual reports of said bricks, you altered your view of the intimidation to being just the implict threat of bricks that was cowing the poor, quivering Unionists.

    Apologies if that wasn't you.
    It was a long while back, but generally I dont like to make controversial assumptions unless I can link to something backing it up (unless I am being OTT and silly which is not unknown (doubles and zeebrugge all round))

    Personally I think the same principle was in play in the two referendums. If I was a scot I would have voted for independence, however as someone English Im glad for strategic reasons it didnt and happy for barnet formula and tribute to be paid to keep things as they are.

    The real difference in the results is because UK offered Scotland various baubles "the vow" if they stayed in the union whereas all the EU offered the UK was the finger.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.

    Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.

    It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.

    After all, who can tell when she will snap?

    And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.

    (The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
    Not an Archers listener, then?
    One thing we do know is that Ms Champion's former husband has refused to comment.

    We have Ms Champion's version of what happened. Whilst she doesn't entirely absolve herself of blame, she certainly puts a huge chunk of the blame on the behaviour of her ex-husband.

    In the circumstances, it is rather noble & restrained of her ex-husband not to comment, or offer his version of events.
    IT may be noble but it is not beneficial because it means all we have once again is half the truth plus a barrow load of assumptions.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Worth quoting the detailed breakdown from the Guardian (apols for length but one can't link to a section of a rolling blog):

    In August, as ballot papers starting going out, the Labour party released figures saying that 640,500 would be able to cast votes in the election. Here is the breakdown.

    Party members - 343,500 (54% of the total electorate)

    Affiliated supporters - 168,000 (26% of the electorate)

    (These are union members who have paid a fee to affiliate to Labour)

    Registered supporters - 129,000 (20%)

    (These are the people who paid £25 to become registered supporters).

    This year the electorate is bigger than it was last year. In 2015 554,000 people were eligible to vote.

    Interestingly, the proportions of those entitled to vote were almost exactly the same in 2015 as they are this year. In 2015 members has 53% of the votes, affiliated supporters 27% and registered supporters 20%.

    But in 2015 registered supporters actually accounted for 25% of all votes cast because because turnout amongst registered supporters (93%) was higher than amongst members (83.5%) and much higher than amongst affiliated supporters (48.5%).

    In 2015 affiliated supporters (union members) only accounted for 17% of votes cast, despite having 27% of the votes available. Members accounted for 58% of votes cast.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    According to Sky, turnout this year is 77.6%.

    What was it last year?
  • IanB2 said:

    Linking two of today's thread conversations, my partner once told me (on an Austrian holiday) that buying a cuckoo clock would constitute domestic abuse.

    As my kids are now going through the house imitating the clock and driving me mad cuckooing with glee they may have a point....
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    While it's something I absolutely dread, it's entirely possible that we have a major economic problem between now and 2020.

    Imagine, for a second, that we need to close our current account deficit through raising the savings rate. (A balanced current account equates to about an 10% gross savings rate, we're at 3.3%.) Closing that in a two year period would involve a massive recession, with unemployment above 10%, and maybe a 5% contraction in GDP.

    Under those circumstances, could the British people elect Jeremy Corbyn, just as the Greeks elected Tsipras? Yes, they could.

    It scares the living daylights out of me, but it is an entirely possible (if fortunately unlikely) scenario.
    The dire scenario that you envisage is still light years away from the kind of collapse that Greece endured (runs on the banks, general unemployment at over 25%, youth unemployment at over 50%, big cuts to pension entitlements, etc, etc,) and even then the Syriza victory was not exactly overwhelming.

    No significant proportion of the voters who backed Cameron last time is going to defect to Labour under Corbyn, and if the next election is in 2020 it will almost certainly be under the reformed boundaries anyway. I'm as sure as I can be of anything in politics that Labour will lose next time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited September 2016
    imageI'm not sure I ordered enough:

    image
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    murali_s said:

    According to Sky, turnout this year is 77.6%.

    What was it last year?
    76.3
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited September 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    Indigo said:

    There's plain, salted or sweet: can anyone recommend any other coatings for popcorn?

    They sell it either salted, or BBQ or Cheese flavoured here.... no I don't recommend it. The best popcorn out of a packet is clearly Werther's Original Caramel, but it costs an arm and a leg to get here :(
    I'm fond of Butterkist toffee popcorn - reminds me of cinema as a kid. But it does persist between teeth for ages.
    Yes, that is a good standby, and its available here, it is also the favourite of my dentist for the reasons you state!!
  • IanB2 said:

    Mr. Mark, indeed, though it'd be getting more coverage if a man had done it. It seems a newspaper front page describes her as 'provoked and vulnerable'.

    Right.

    Excuses that would not be accepted if she was a man. Or a Tory.

    It seems some Labour female MPs are getting police protection against constituents, and understandably so. Perhaps she needs police as well, to protect her constituents from her.

    After all, who can tell when she will snap?

    And I don't think she's got kids, or they'd need to be taken off her for their protection.

    (The above are sometimes said about male perpetrators of violence).
    Not an Archers listener, then?
    Sadly not recently. Although I hear Helen Kitchener's got off scot-free, and has been granted custody of the kids.

    Thus somewhat proving my point.

    That entire storyline was so predictable and so utterly BBC. They should have been much more adventurous.
    Titchener.

    You've not listened to a story line and yet you know it's entirely predictable and so utterly BBC? Your critical faculties must be well nigh miraculous.
    I've not listened in the last couple of weeks (last during the trial), but have it on catch-up upstairs (I'm sad enough to listen to it sometimes on podcast when I'm out and about). I've just read that she was granted custody.

    Is that not correct?
    I believe so.

    It's a soap opera, they're not going to spend months building up a character's creepy bastardishness just to end up with a 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' scenario. Insofar as there are many real life cases resembling the Titchener story, I guess the mother getting custody is probably a realistic outcome.

    I'm sure the utterly predictable and worthy BBC at several points must have addressed the statistically much, much smaller incidence of female on male abuse that seems to preoccupy a certain type of PB male.
    What 'type' is that, pray tell?
    The 'victims of the oppressive, liberal-left gynocracy' type.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    IanB2 said:

    The necessary plurality of the public is not going to vote for a mass wave of nationalisation, sumptuary taxes, unilateral disarmament and money printing a l'outrance no matter now nice the smile of the person attempting to sell those policies. The Tories will remain in power until somebody with a more appealing message come along, regardless of how tired and jaded they become.

    To put it another way, if you had to sit on a choice of one of two chairs - a knackered old sofa with stuffing coming out of it and half the springs broken, or a sharpened iron spike - then you would choose the busted sofa, regardless of how often you were given the chance to change your mind and how uncomfortable the sofa was, now wouldn't you?

    90% of the time you are right; it's the unforeseen 10% scenario we should worry about. When times get bad it is surprising what people will vote for.
    I think you and I will have to agree to differ. I envisage no plausible scenario in which the far Left can win a General Election: imagining such a thing requires one to entertain a dystopian future, such as a societal collapse, or the aftermath of a major and protracted war.

    If Labour goes off to the radical Left and stays there, then there will be no change of Government until it is marginalised sufficiently for another party to take its place in the Big Two, as happened when Labour displaced the Liberals.
    Its more likely to happen by accident. If the Tories are sufficiently worn out and disreputable in the future, voters will drift away to the fringe parties or stay on the sofa, and a chunk of marginal seats will move to Labour. A Labour largest party with a boat load of LDs and Kippers is not out of the question in that circumstance.
  • murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    You could try the Labour Party conference instead.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    Linking two of today's thread conversations, my partner once told me (on an Austrian holiday) that buying a cuckoo clock would constitute domestic abuse.

    As my kids are now going through the house imitating the clock and driving me mad cuckooing with glee they may have a point....
    Turn the lights off and shut the curtains, you never know....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    You could try the Labour Party conference instead.
    Surely we are hoping for some DNC style fireworks....
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Dr P,

    "In general, for simplicity, we tend to lump quite different things together - someone who tells a joke about Asians is portrayed in the same general light as an apologist for the Holocaust, etc."

    I think you're confusing politicians with real people who can tell the difference. To a political person, everything is black and white.

    Mr G using the term "ginger beer", however innocently, is homophobic. Any old git using the term 'coloured' is racist, anyone who talks loudly to their partner is guilty of domestic violence, and almost everything is "ethnic cleansing".

    They routinely devalue words by hyperbole. It's what children and politicians do.

    If I were a politician, I'd call you a Trotskyite hypocrite, but as I'm not, I'd settle for accusing you of being subjective, which is what we all are.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    Who on Earth do you have in mind?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Nah, us Brits aren't that stupid.

    I seem to be in a minority who seem to think the mass of our population actually have their heads screwed-on, and possess quite a bit of common sense.

    As am I. More often than not the people get it right: if you don't accept that premise then it brings representative democracy itself into question. Unfortunately there are quite a lot of people who think that ordinary voters are thick and usually make wrong-headed decisions. The logical consequence of this is that there should be a technocracy (consisting, naturally, of the self-same biens pensants who criticise Mr & Mrs Average for being dangerous dunces,) in which our leaders do good unto us, rather than acting at our behest.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited September 2016
    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    Come on... Somebody win.

    Some of us have things to do, places to be, etc.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    GIN1138 said:

    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    Who on Earth do you have in mind?
    Not TSE, RobD, David Herdson, Mr Dancer - these PB Tories have class. It's the head banging right-wing loons that I worry about. They know who they are...
  • Q: On a monumental morning for Labour which is the best person that the BBC News and BBC2 put up to front their political programme?
    Ans: Victoria Derbyshire

    Over to Sky News.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Indigo said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
    Not surprised. Of course I and every other adblocker user am cutting off my nose to spite my face, as I sit here AdBlocking away and aggrievedly complaining that there is less and less free content on the internet.

    I do disable adblock on pb, though!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    murali_s said:

    GIN1138 said:

    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    Who on Earth do you have in mind?
    Not TSE, RobD, David Herdson, Mr Dancer - these PB Tories have class. It's the head banging right-wing loons that I worry about. They know who they are...
    I think you should name names! :open_mouth:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited September 2016
    Mr. Betting, who's on Sky News, though?

    Edited extra bit: Mr. S, how very kind of you :)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    The Liverpool Socialist Singers appear to be in good voice today
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    You are pointing in the wrong place. The Labour Party did it. They didn't have to elect a marxist in a beard and make all the Tories Christmases come at once with commensurate hilarity from right-leaning people here. Had they elected some sensible centre-left drone the papers would have been full of Tory party infighting for the last few weeks which you in due course would have enjoyed gloating about here!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    edited September 2016

    Worth quoting the detailed breakdown from the Guardian (apols for length but one can't link to a section of a rolling blog):

    In August, as ballot papers starting going out, the Labour party released figures saying that 640,500 would be able to cast votes in the election. Here is the breakdown.

    Party members - 343,500 (54% of the total electorate)

    Affiliated supporters - 168,000 (26% of the electorate)

    (These are union members who have paid a fee to affiliate to Labour)

    Registered supporters - 129,000 (20%)

    (These are the people who paid £25 to become registered supporters).

    This year the electorate is bigger than it was last year. In 2015 554,000 people were eligible to vote.

    Interestingly, the proportions of those entitled to vote were almost exactly the same in 2015 as they are this year. In 2015 members has 53% of the votes, affiliated supporters 27% and registered supporters 20%.

    But in 2015 registered supporters actually accounted for 25% of all votes cast because because turnout amongst registered supporters (93%) was higher than amongst members (83.5%) and much higher than amongst affiliated supporters (48.5%).

    In 2015 affiliated supporters (union members) only accounted for 17% of votes cast, despite having 27% of the votes available. Members accounted for 58% of votes cast.

    ACtually you can.

    THere is a link on the time stamp of each section ... Just right-click and copy.

    Your quote is:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/sep/24/labour-leadership-election-result-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith-appeals-for-unity-politics-live?page=with:block-57e6463ae4b0831a51401d5d#block-57e6463ae4b0831a51401d5d
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    Mr. Betting, who's on Sky News, though?


    Is it Faisal? ;)

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Indigo said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
    I'd love to be able to reply to those who say 'please whitelist our site'. Their site is already white listed, but the fifteen other dodgy domains that their site tries to throw at me are most certainly not!

    The solution to ad blocking will be when the various news sites start to host their own ads, and take as much responsibility for them getting to me as if they were in the print edition.
  • rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    This is worth a read, particularly for any Tories about to open the champagne a bit earlier than usual for a weekend:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/23/dont-be-afraid-of-jeremy-corbyn-be-afraid-of-what-comes-after-hi/

    I read that piece the other day. It requires you to imagine yourself living in a parallel universe in which 40% of the electorate in England is ready to embrace radical socialism, if only a sufficiently skilled salesman were available to talk them into it.

    I suppose that you can't completely rule out this prospect, a bit like the fact that you can't absolutely rule out Northern Ireland winning the World Cup at some point during our lifetimes, But I wouldn't stake any money on it. Would you?
    While it's something I absolutely dread, it's entirely possible that we have a major economic problem between now and 2020.

    Imagine, for a second, that we need to close our current account deficit through raising the savings rate. (A balanced current account equates to about an 10% gross savings rate, we're at 3.3%.) Closing that in a two year period would involve a massive recession, with unemployment above 10%, and maybe a 5% contraction in GDP.

    Under those circumstances, could the British people elect Jeremy Corbyn, just as the Greeks elected Tsipras? Yes, they could.

    It scares the living daylights out of me, but it is an entirely possible (if fortunately unlikely) scenario.
    The dire scenario that you envisage is still light years away from the kind of collapse that Greece endured (runs on the banks, general unemployment at over 25%, youth unemployment at over 50%, big cuts to pension entitlements, etc, etc,) and even then the Syriza victory was not exactly overwhelming.

    No significant proportion of the voters who backed Cameron last time is going to defect to Labour under Corbyn, and if the next election is in 2020 it will almost certainly be under the reformed boundaries anyway. I'm as sure as I can be of anything in politics that Labour will lose next time.
    I refer you to the quote I posted down thread :-)

    "In fact, I genuinely think there is more chance of Mary Berry becoming the next James Bond than there is of Jeremy Corbyn walking into Downing Street as our next Prime Minister."


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3804952/Death-Labour-Party-Today-barring-miracle-Corbyn-elected-leader-heralding-end-great-reforming-party-s-killed-hard-Left-Britain-poorer-it.html#ixzz4LA4KJhra
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    Fortunately the power is in Labour's hands to stop feeding the fruitcakes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    Fabricant is a Grade-A selfish twat, Boris Johnson without the brain cell. I'm not sure why anyone bothers to listen to him.

    For me, the moment I realised just how useless he is came when he opposed the electrification of the Chase Line because it would make the trains faster, quieter, cheaper and more frequent.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Sky News live, official stream. Adam Boulton hosting.
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=y60wDzZt8yg
  • GIN1138 said:

    Mr. Betting, who's on Sky News, though?

    Is it Faisal? ;)
    No it is Adam Boulton who as a Labour leaning chap does understand the isues of Labour and the people. He has a better selection of guests.

    Faisal who?
  • GIN1138 said:

    Mr. Betting, who's on Sky News, though?


    Is it Faisal? ;)

    Boulton.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Sandpit said:

    Indigo said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
    I'd love to be able to reply to those who say 'please whitelist our site'. Their site is already white listed, but the fifteen other dodgy domains that their site tries to throw at me are most certainly not!

    The solution to ad blocking will be when the various news sites start to host their own ads, and take as much responsibility for them getting to me as if they were in the print edition.
    This site keeps trying to sell me, or rather give me for free, a Goat Simulator (literally).

    This is not, by the way, because my browsing history has suggested to the ad server that I have an interest in getting jiggy with goats.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Ishmael_X said:

    Indigo said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
    Not surprised. Of course I and every other adblocker user am cutting off my nose to spite my face, as I sit here AdBlocking away and aggrievedly complaining that there is less and less free content on the internet.

    I do disable adblock on pb, though!
    If Ad users had the slightest bit of taste and decorum a lot of people would not be driven to using ad blockers in the first place. Flashing banner adverts for solutions to an unsatisfactory sex life and pop-ups all over the damn place for lowest-common-denominator sites of a similar ilk are why people mostly use ads blockers.
  • On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    IanB2 said:

    murali_s said:

    The PB Tories and the other right-wing fruitcakes are going to make this place unbearable for the next few hours/days. Sighs...

    You could try the Labour Party conference instead.
    Surely we are hoping for some DNC style fireworks....
    For anyone who missed this peculiar address from Hillary Spaceship Commander. It looks like a Max Headroom spoof, but isn't.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qDpF2Phb5Q
  • Mr. X, Goat Simulator is (by all accounts) a silly but entertaining videogame. Not played it myself.

    Boulton's much better than Faisal Islam. Not difficult, mind.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    I know of two Conrads. One is Black and one is Veidt.
  • Ladbrokes Politics ‏@LadPolitics 1h1 hour ago
    This man has just become favourite to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader #Lab16
    http://lbrk.es/mSfB304wgKe

    Clive Lewis
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    Everybody the BBC has interviewed so far from Liverpool looks as though they have just been told their puppy has days to live....
  • Everybody the BBC has interviewed so far from Liverpool looks as though they have just been told their puppy has days to live....

    The puppy actually has about 15 mins to live in reality.
  • ydoethur said:

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    I know of two Conrads. One is Black and one is Veidt.
    Seems he writes for the Morning Star. Bit of a debate with Boulton as to whether this is a communist paper or not.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    ydoethur said:

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    I know of two Conrads. One is Black and one is Veidt.
    "Ven ze lighthaus shines agross ze bay" !
  • Downing Street will be punching the air shortly according to former Labour aide on Sky.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Betfair now have Corbyn unbackable, Smith at 99/1.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ishmael_X said:

    Sandpit said:

    Indigo said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    GIN1138 said:

    On the Guardian live blog

    Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution - The Guardian.

    NOPE, soz

    If they have something worth paying for (and they do), then they need to make people pay.

    I don't get why advertising revenues should be falling though if "more people are reading the Guardian than ever"?
    Everybody is using ad blockers (so the advertisements never get seen) ?
    Many sites these days make you turn off an adblocker; the guardian doesn't. I have just turned mine off as an experiment - lots of very dodgy-looking "paid content" advertorial - which I mind a lot more than I mind straightforward ads.
    That wont last long, tools to stop sites complaining about you not watching their ads are well along in development. Ultimately the server doesn't know what you can see on your screen, it only knows what it sent you, browsers can always made to lie to the server about what they are showing you.
    I'd love to be able to reply to those who say 'please whitelist our site'. Their site is already white listed, but the fifteen other dodgy domains that their site tries to throw at me are most certainly not!

    The solution to ad blocking will be when the various news sites start to host their own ads, and take as much responsibility for them getting to me as if they were in the print edition.
    This site keeps trying to sell me, or rather give me for free, a Goat Simulator (literally).

    This is not, by the way, because my browsing history has suggested to the ad server that I have an interest in getting jiggy with goats.
    I keep getting that on Twitter promoted ads too. I presume because I retweeted cute goat videos...

    I've also had VIP bodyguards this morning amongst loads of IT ones?? At least getting celebrity bodyguarding was better for my self esteem than yesterday's non-slip sensible shoes.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695

    Downing Street will be punching the air shortly according to former Labour aide on Sky.

    Tessa needs to come up with a way to "engineer" an election next Spring now...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    He's from the Morning Star!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    I remember last year, the New Statesman cautioned against this palaver because Corbyn would just win again leaving Labour looking, in the words of an unidentifiable frontbencher 'not only unelectable but fucking stupid'.

    That remark is looking truly prescient this morning. It's Labour that have 15 minutes to live now.

    And this defender of Corbyn could not be talking more nonsense if he were smoking weed while being interviewed.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Downing Street will be punching the air shortly according to former Labour aide on Sky.

    Tessa needs to come up with a way to "engineer" an election next Spring now...
    Boris comes back with single market and no free movement of people.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Sky conversation is hilarious, Bolton just asked three Labour members what this (Corbyn winning again) means for the Tories - one started by saying they'll be having a party, then the conversation quickly descends into the three of them slinging mud at each other!!
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Everybody the BBC has interviewed so far from Liverpool looks as though they have just been told their puppy has days to live....

    Just switched channels. Over on Sky they have a nice lady bemoaning the advent of a Tory one-party state. And Dan Hodges...

    The reporter from the Morning Star seems to be quite positive about Mr Corbyn though. That's nice.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741

    ydoethur said:

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    I know of two Conrads. One is Black and one is Veidt.
    Seems he writes for the Morning Star. Bit of a debate with Boulton as to whether this is a communist paper or not.
    Der Sturmer wasn't really a Nazi paper, whatever people may think. Hitler sometimes criticised its grammar.
  • ydoethur said:

    I remember last year, the New Statesman cautioned against this palaver because Corbyn would just win again leaving Labour looking, in the words of an unidentifiable frontbencher 'not only unelectable but fucking stupid'.

    That remark is looking truly prescient this morning. It's Labour that have 15 minutes to live now.

    And this defender of Corbyn could not be talking more nonsense if he were smoking weed while being interviewed.

    Bet he has never knocked on a door to canvas a real voter in his life.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,741
    edited September 2016
    Indigo said:

    ydoethur said:

    On Sky, who is the Corbyn defender? Conrad someone?

    I know of two Conrads. One is Black and one is Veidt.
    "Ven ze lighthaus shines agross ze bay" !
    Is that from Conrad Veidt's performance in the Spy in Black?

    EDIT - Ok, I'll stop the puns now, as it seems nobody else is getting what I thought was a very clever pun.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sky conversation is hilarious, Bolton just asked three Labour members what this (Corbyn winning again) means for the Tories - one started by saying they'll be having a party, then the conversation quickly descends into the three of them slinging mud at each other!!

    Yes. The lady is a part time comedian and former spad so kept trying to be reasonable and "polishing a tur*".
    We now have redBeth from Sky ex FT.
  • Not long now – will they be singing in the valleys, or rioting in Islington?
This discussion has been closed.