politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is peace breaking out in the Labour party? Don Brind hopes he’

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is peace breaking out in the Labour party? Don Brind hopes he’s not indulging in wishful thinking.

“Matt Wrack and I do our bit for Labour unity” was the caption on an arresting Twitter photo montage on the last day of the Labour conference. It showed Richard Angell, the director of Progress, donning firefighter gear for a photocall with the said Matt Wreck — general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union.

Read the full story here

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Hope Woolfe can make a full recovery.

FPT (twice): Mr. Max, The Witcher 3 is an excellent game.

Slackbladder

Is it peace, or just a ceasefire?

foxinsoxuk

Slackbladder said:

Is it peace, or just a ceasefire?

Just a truce to clear the bodies and replenish the ammo!

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

A pause for reloading

GarethoftheVale2

The article should refer to Owen Smith not Owen Jones!

HisEminence

Thanks, I'd forgotten there was a Labour party

619

https://twitter.com/serafinowicz/status/783807500919373824

PlatoSaid

Well... Don says... so will part with hard cash, not.

DecrepitJohnL

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

JackW

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's a results based game. Nate has been outstanding in his previous POTUS election day projections. If that's "daft and confirmation bias" then I'm all for it.

PlatoSaid

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

Nick Blairite Euro-Communist Let's All Be Friends Palmer? Seriously? Tories4Palmer?

Immense insulting twaddle. I can't think of a less credible long-standing source for anything.

david_herdson

Peace is breaking out in Labour, rather like the Peace of Amiens, or from the Treaty of Tilsit. All the underlying reasons for conflict remain and so, at some point, hostilities will be resumed.

On the question of handing over to Lewis or Raynor, several problems. 1. McDonnell. 2. Nominations. Can the left be sure their candidate would be nominated if there were a vacancy? 3. Lewis' seat would be highly marginal under the new boundaries. 4. How good is Raynor - did she just catch a favourable wind off the grammar schools policy? 5. The membership. The idea of Corbynism without Corbyn might not capture their imagination.

Labour is still stuck in the same stalemate it's been in for months. Corbyn can't be forced out but nor can he engineer a succession for his wing. That tension will be intense as Corbyn's leadership failings continue to be exposed over the coming months.

john_zims

test

rottenborough

I may have missed something but Don Brind seems to have completely forgotten that Jezza is stuck. He can't stand down, because no hard-left MP would get the necessary nominations. The rules have to be changed before this can happen and Jezza doesn't have the votes on the NEC.

Barnesian

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

JackW

National - PRRI

Clinton 47 .. Trump 41

http://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/PRRI-Atlantic-Survey-Topline.pdf

edmundintokyo

david_herdson said:

2. Nominations. Can the left be sure their candidate would be nominated if there were a vacancy?

You'd think they could work something out, bearing in mind that the NEC seems to have a reasonable balance-of-power that would allow both sides to get the rules tweaked to make a deal enforceable.

david_herdson said:

3. Lewis' seat would be highly marginal under the new boundaries.

First being leader would help him hold it, second if Labour loses badly under his leadership then that gets rid of him, which is a feature not a bug.

Agree on the other points.

rottenborough

PlatoSaid said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

Nick Blairite Euro-Communist Let's All Be Friends Palmer? Seriously? Tories4Palmer?

Immense insulting twaddle. I can't think of a less credible long-standing source for anything.

Seems likely to me that Labour members are weary of all this. I doubt there is an appetite for another leadership round next year. Which just goes to show that Jezza's idea of annual leadership races was a load of nonsense.

felix

Rayner is pretty awful. Lewis is handy with his fists which appears to be the new normal these days. Either way in both cases does not lie the end of the rainbow.

FF43

Slackbladder said:

Is it peace, or just a ceasefire?

Stalemate, I think. Parliamentarians can't remove the leader nor are they prepared to split. Activists unable to overturn the counterrevolution.

SouthamObserver

The NEC situation has calmed a lot of nerves. Corbyn is going to find it very difficult to change things. That buys the moderates time, as does the fact that May does seem to be genuinely fixed on holding out until 2020. My reading of it is that Corbyn has two years to improve the party's fortunes or he will face another leadership challenge that he is likely to lose. Put another way, the Labour left has two years to find a unity candidate. I think it may be Lisa Nandy.

edmundintokyo

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Also worth adding that when Trump was briefly doing better in the polls before the debate, 538 moved further towards him than any of the other projections.

Theuniondivvie

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

All very well, but does Nate read Breitbart?

not_on_fire

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Indeed, the confirmation bias is generated by those like HYUFD who are determined to view the US election through a simplistic Leave=Trump,Remain=Clinton filter.

foxinsoxuk

619 said:

https://twitter.com/serafinowicz/status/783807500919373824

Good Lord!

Even the PB Trumpsters must be appalled.

The man is doing a kamikaze.

PlatoSaid

Umm

SNP’s ‘National Survey’ was in breach of data protection rules https://t.co/dpu6lJU6aG https://t.co/0Z7oCqs1ET

@rogerlwhite Serious *national?* breach of data protection could result in penalty up to £500,000 https://t.co/7OnWFB6bxq @ICOnews

FF43

not_on_fire said:

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Indeed, the confirmation bias is generated by those like HYUFD who are determined to view the US election through a simplistic Leave=Trump,Remain=Clinton filter.

Nevertheless I think Five Thirty Eight does make assumptions about its readership being educated metropolitan liberals. There is a lot of "When i say Trump is doing well, you better believe it. I have evidence!"

PlatoSaid

Umm

Four thousand people were injured by knives in London last year

Latest shocking figures show knife crime in London has reached its highest level in 5 years, 11 a day

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/revealed-4000-people-were-stabbed-in-london-last-year-a3362201.html

AlastairMeeks

The state of the Labour party falls into the category of things I should care about but can't. It doesn't look as though it's a subject that is going to matter directly for quite some time so I'd rather devote my mental energy to things that might.

If any of their saner politicians are prepared to start addressing the concerns of the many people who aren't Eurosceptic nutjobs in a post-Brexit Britain, I'll tune back in again. So far, all I've heard is white noise.

MTimT

not_on_fire said:

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Indeed, the confirmation bias is generated by those like HYUFD who are determined to view the US election through a simplistic Leave=Trump,Remain=Clinton filter.

That is not to say that there are no biases in Nate's models. There are (reliance on the quality of the polling in general and overall biases of the polling industry; overall biases of the political commentariat for the polls + model).

Just as efforts in the financial sector to manage risk introduced new systemic risks, Nate's models in trying to remove biases introduces new, more subtle ones.

That does not negate the value of his work, unless we start to take his utterings as those of an Oracle.

MarqueeMark

Slackbladder said:

Is it peace, or just a ceasefire?

The players in Labour have finally come to the conclusion that it's just not worth fighting over the corpse any more....

kle4

rottenborough said:

Seems likely to me that Labour members are weary of all this. I doubt there is an appetite for another leadership round next year. Which just goes to show that Jezza's idea of annual leadership races was a load of nonsense.

Even if they are willing to keep on fighting at some point, and most do appear to be war weary, those who are willing surely have to be waiting for an opportunity so would also not be interested in stirring much up right now.

Who knows if it will last - if the Tories start to decline, then I think so, because fears of how bad it will go will lessen. But the Tories are still looking fairly comfortable, and people facing a really bad outcome will feel obliged to speak up again at some point

MTimT

AlastairMeeks said:

The state of the Labour party falls into the category of things I should care about but can't. It doesn't look as though it's a subject that is going to matter directly for quite some time so I'd rather devote my mental energy to things that might.

If any of their saner politicians are prepared to start addressing the concerns of the many people who aren't Eurosceptic nutjobs in a post-Brexit Britain, I'll tune back in again. So far, all I've heard is white noise.

I think you'll find that lots of politicians are addressing the concerns of the many people who aren't Eurosceptic nut jobs. It's just that the majority of those people are perfectly sane Eurosceptics.

Kevin_McCandless

The PRRI poll is interesting. 7% of this month's respondents remember voting for a third-party candidate in 2012 (as opposed to the actual figure of under 2%)

ThreeQuidder

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

619

MTimT said:

not_on_fire said:

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Indeed, the confirmation bias is generated by those like HYUFD who are determined to view the US election through a simplistic Leave=Trump,Remain=Clinton filter.

That is not to say that there are no biases in Nate's models. There are (reliance on the quality of the polling in general and overall biases of the polling industry; overall biases of the political commentariat for the polls + model).

Just as efforts in the financial sector to manage risk introduced new systemic risks, Nate's models in trying to remove biases introduces new, more subtle ones.

That does not negate the value of his work, unless we start to take his utterings as those of an Oracle.

Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong

Barnesian

619 said:

MTimT said:

not_on_fire said:

Barnesian said:

FPT

PlatoSaid said:

JackW said:

Barnesian said:

My concern with the 538 polls-plus forecast is that it adds the economy and historical data on top of the projection of the polls. This such an unusual election that I'm not sure there are useful historical precedents so I'm relying more on the polls-only forecast.

It's certainly true that Trump adds spice to the mix but the mountain of polling and other data has provided 538 with a formidable and accurate resource for POTUS. Perhaps a Polls-Plus-Trump would fit the bill.

Additionally the 538 Polls Plus is very much a tribute act to my ARSE and there can be no finer compliment, even though it is well covered in Mrs JackW's bloomers this election ..

I honestly have no idea re almost religious belief re the Spoken Word According To 538.

Seems daft and confirmation bias to me.

It's the opposite of confirmation bias. Everyone has to fight confirmation bias. Some succeed more than others.

538 goes to extreme lengths to avoid it by using an explicit evidence based model that identifies and adjusts for the biases and quality of the various polls. We quote it because it does the hard work for us and helps prevent us falling into the confirmation bias trap.

Indeed, the confirmation bias is generated by those like HYUFD who are determined to view the US election through a simplistic Leave=Trump,Remain=Clinton filter.

That is not to say that there are no biases in Nate's models. There are (reliance on the quality of the polling in general and overall biases of the polling industry; overall biases of the political commentariat for the polls + model).

Just as efforts in the financial sector to manage risk introduced new systemic risks, Nate's models in trying to remove biases introduces new, more subtle ones.

That does not negate the value of his work, unless we start to take his utterings as those of an Oracle.

Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong

Quite

PlatoSaid

Ha

Jeremy Corbin MP
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue-ish
If it wasn't for Jesus
We'd all be Zionists

#NationalPoetryDay https://t.co/jzKEX9j4Vy

Jason

There are very obvious differences between Brown's floundering with the phoney election and what is going on now. Firstly, May has ruled out an early election. Secondly, the Tories had a PM-in-waiting back then. Mr Corbyn is many things, but he is not that. I reckon Theresa May could introduce a law decriminalising paedophilia, and the public would still vote for her over Corbyn.

david_herdson

edmundintokyo said:

david_herdson said:

2. Nominations. Can the left be sure their candidate would be nominated if there were a vacancy?

You'd think they could work something out, bearing in mind that the NEC seems to have a reasonable balance-of-power that would allow both sides to get the rules tweaked to make a deal enforceable.

david_herdson said:

3. Lewis' seat would be highly marginal under the new boundaries.

First being leader would help him hold it, second if Labour loses badly under his leadership then that gets rid of him, which is a feature not a bug.

Agree on the other points.

The party should be able to work something out if they wanted to work something out, but do they? Their blocking majority against the hard left is the one trump card the PLP have and by far their most likely means of getting their party back quickly. Were Corbyn to stand down then they'd be in a very strong position to dictate terms as to who could stand, providing that they kept their nerve. Someone from the soft left, like Lewis, might have enough support to make the ballot providing the Die Hards don't split nominations.

As for his constituency, there's much in what you say but would the new parts of his constituency be that bothered about 'leader prestige'? At the least, it'd be a roll of the dice and there's a small but not insignificant chance that Labour could end up in a hung parliament where a left-of-centre coalition was viable but where they were without a leader in the Commons.

Speedy

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC situation has calmed a lot of nerves. Corbyn is going to find it very difficult to change things. That buys the moderates time, as does the fact that May does seem to be genuinely fixed on holding out until 2020. My reading of it is that Corbyn has two years to improve the party's fortunes or he will face another leadership challenge that he is likely to lose. Put another way, the Labour left has two years to find a unity candidate. I think it may be Lisa Nandy.

Everyday that passes more Pro-Corbyn members become eligible to vote for a leadership campaign and fewer Anti-Corbyn members remain Labour members.

Since Corbyn won by 59% and then 62%, in 2 years that may be up to 70%.

I have missed quite a few buses in my life and I recognize when someone has missed it.
Time has run out for those who want to oust Corbyn.

HurstLlama

ThreeQuidder said:

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

My memory says it was September 2007 that there was an inflexion point in political feeling in the UK. I remember driving back from London listening to the news on Radio 4 and it was as if a switch had been thrown, Labour's dominance was over.

MTimT

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

paulbarker

This will have to be quick because Labour dont matter any more. Don Brind, understandably doesnt get what The Left are at. For a full idea of the Left Leadership thinking, consult The AWL site - essentially a "Mass" Revolutionary Party. The left followers just want to have fun, as long as its noisy & colourful they dont mind.
The Left are in charge & they dont care what The Centrists do, Faux Unity suits them for now but splits would suit as well. Defections by MPs, a Formal Split, members leaving en masse, The Labour vote halving, they dont give a damn. The Left are after quality not quantity, a smaller, Redder Labour is what they want.
The Centrists have zero leverage, there is nothing they can threaten The Left with. Whether the PLP majority give in or fight makes little difference in the end, from their point of view.
For loyal Labour voters this must all be very tiresome, even painful, they have some decisions to make.

david_herdson

Speedy said:

SouthamObserver said:

The NEC situation has calmed a lot of nerves. Corbyn is going to find it very difficult to change things. That buys the moderates time, as does the fact that May does seem to be genuinely fixed on holding out until 2020. My reading of it is that Corbyn has two years to improve the party's fortunes or he will face another leadership challenge that he is likely to lose. Put another way, the Labour left has two years to find a unity candidate. I think it may be Lisa Nandy.

Everyday that passes more Pro-Corbyn members become eligible to vote for a leadership campaign and fewer Anti-Corbyn members remain Labour members.

Since Corbyn won by 59% and then 62%, in 2 years that may be up to 70%.

I have missed quite a few buses in my life and I recognize when someone has missed it.
Time has run out for those who want to oust Corbyn.

Worth remembering that Corbyn would probably have won at least 62% (not *by* 62%) had the votes been redistributed to the final two, to make for a like-for-like comparison.

But the main point is right: the voting base is still shifting Corbyn's way, even if there's a counter-current of disillusioned mainstream types who thought it was worth giving him a go.

Speedy

619 said:

Indeed. If trump wins, it means a 25-30% chance event happened. Doesn't mean Nate Silver was wrong

If Trump wins I'll eat my cigars.
His chances are not 25-30% but close to 1.5%.

When he loses the second debate he should bet 10$ million on Pence for President then resign the nomination.
Pence would beat Hillary easily since he's not Trump, and Trump will get 100$ million in cash from the betting markets and say that his strategic genius lead to Hillary's defeat.

Trump comes out a winner of sorts, Hillary loses.

And everyone is happy that neither Trump nor Hillary becomes President.

Sunil_Prasannan

ThreeQuidder said:

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

We cannot be killed

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

HurstLlama

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

Mr. T., I am long past the point where I would read any article which has in its headline the word "Could". I am now teetering on the edge of refusing to look at articles headlined with the word, "Will".

AnneJGP

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

FF43

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

Are you confirming your own bias? :-)

Speedy

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

david_herdson

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

Nick Blairite Euro-Communist Let's All Be Friends Palmer? Seriously? Tories4Palmer?

Immense insulting twaddle. I can't think of a less credible long-standing source for anything.

Seems likely to me that Labour members are weary of all this. I doubt there is an appetite for another leadership round next year. Which just goes to show that Jezza's idea of annual leadership races was a load of nonsense.

None of the main parties have ever had three contested leadership elections in three successive years. Two-in-two is rare enough. There is probably something of a general rule that even when parties are severely split, there comes a point where they recognise that further challenges are futile in the short term.

Sunil_Prasannan

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

We cannot be killed

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, Miss JGP.

I quite agree. Clegg's 'could' cost us 3m jobs line was a fine example.

I'm still awaiting the downfall of Western civilisation.

GIN1138

Good to hear that Mr Woolfe is apparently going to be OK after his "altercation"

foxinsoxuk

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Sunil_Prasannan

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

Don't you mean it "could" be a good afternoon, Anne?

Scott_P

Labour have launched another reshuffle

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsox, to paraphrase Garak: "Don't tell the same lie twice" is surely the message?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784057656646496256

david_herdson

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ThreeQuidder said:

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase

We cannot be killed

'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'

Labour has only ever increased its majority once, in 1966. (It did better at a second election while in government in October 1974 but it didn't have a majority to start with).

In fact, it's almost unheard of for any party to increase its majority when that majority has fallen at a previous election (so it can go up, as in 1983, 1966 or 1959, but once it's peaked, it's downhill all the way into opposition).

GIN1138

ThreeQuidder said:

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

Just think, if it hadn't been for *THAT* ICM poll Brown might have called and election and won.

In which case Cameron may never have become PM. In which case there would never have been referendums for AV, Scottish independence and the EU. In which case we'd never have left the EU (and we would't have spent endless hours discussing the merits of AV)

One of the great "What If's" of British history.

MTimT

FF43 said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

Are you confirming your own bias? :-)

Against predictions which seek to predict the unpredictable, yes.

It's all somewhat pointless. If May holds good to her word on repatriating sovereignty over law and immigration to the UK, the die is cast. I am happy to wait for actual evidence on the impact at this stage.

Scott_P

@jessphillips: We've started reshuffle I see, so far one woman sacked, one man given her job. I hope this isn't a theme

Morris_Dancer

Be interesting to see which MPs return to the Shadow Cabinet.

tpfkar

"Is peace breaking out in the Labour party?"
If Jeremy Corbyn is carrying out a reshuffle, my money is on phones, walls, tempers, friendships, embargoes and morale breaking long before peace does

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, to paraphrase Garak: "Don't tell the same lie twice" is surely the message?

Surely it is that lying will get you in trouble because the risk of wolves is very real.

Personally I never predicted apocalypse with Brexit, just a slow deteriation. The devaluation seems to vindicate that.

NickPalmer

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

Nick Blairite Euro-Communist Let's All Be Friends Palmer? Seriously? Tories4Palmer?

Immense insulting twaddle. I can't think of a less credible long-standing source for anything.

Seems likely to me that Labour members are weary of all this. I doubt there is an appetite for another leadership round next year. Which just goes to show that Jezza's idea of annual leadership races was a load of nonsense.

None of the main parties have ever had three contested leadership elections in three successive years. Two-in-two is rare enough. There is probably something of a general rule that even when parties are severely split, there comes a point where they recognise that further challenges are futile in the short term.

Agreed. Equally, talk of systematic deselections has melted away. People have decided to give amity a shot.

MaxPB

Scott_P said:

@jessphillips: We've started reshuffle I see, so far one woman sacked, one man given her job. I hope this isn't a theme

Gosh she's an idiot.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, to paraphrase Garak: "Don't tell the same lie twice" is surely the message?

Surely it is that lying will get you in trouble because the risk of wolves is very real.

Personally I never predicted apocalypse with Brexit, just a slow deteriation. The devaluation seems to vindicate that.

Empirical evidence disagrees with you, the villagers came out even on the second day he cried wolf!

Scott_P

@e_casalicchio: I'm hearing there's a "strong chance" Diane Abbott is going to get Shadow Home Secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle.

MTimT

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

dr_spyn

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784058951189094400

Peace on or off?

kle4

NickPalmer said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

PlatoSaid said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP in tune with what Nick Palmer was saying the other day about the membership's war-weariness.

Nick Blairite Euro-Communist Let's All Be Friends Palmer? Seriously? Tories4Palmer?

Immense insulting twaddle. I can't think of a less credible long-standing source for anything.

Seems likely to me that Labour members are weary of all this. I doubt there is an appetite for another leadership round next year. Which just goes to show that Jezza's idea of annual leadership races was a load of nonsense.

None of the main parties have ever had three contested leadership elections in three successive years. Two-in-two is rare enough. There is probably something of a general rule that even when parties are severely split, there comes a point where they recognise that further challenges are futile in the short term.

Agreed. Equally, talk of systematic deselections has melted away. People have decided to give amity a shot.

Quite probably - even if one takes a cynical view of things, Corbyn and his supporters renewed strength surely meant it was probably not necessary to be vindictive and go for systematic deselections, the party is firmly on the they want, want take action would provoke inevitable resistance unnecessarily?

HurstLlama

A superb article by Stanley, sums up just how I feel (and I suspect wht TM will romp home in 2020)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/05/theresa-may-has-closed-the-liberal-era-bring-on-christian-democr/

Scott_P

@JonathanHaynes: And the starting gun has been fired on the Labour reshuffle. Will it be finished before Article 50 is triggered? Does it even matter?

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsox, whilst I agree with you that the Apocalypse will not forthcoming just yet, it's far too early to judge the impact of our departure (if we do leave) on our long term prosperity. It's the work of decades, not months or even years.

david_herdson

GIN1138 said:

ThreeQuidder said:

"At the equivalent point in his premiership Gordon Brown swept Labour to 44% — a 13% lead over the Tories. “By the year end we were at 27%,” Bartram recalls."

Yes, and something which happened exactly nine years ago today may have had a little something to do with that.

https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/783960510760878080

(It says seven years ago, but it was 2007, wasn't it?)

Just think, if it hadn't been for *THAT* ICM poll Brown might have called and election and won.

In which case Cameron may never have become PM. In which case there would never have been referendums for AV, Scottish independence and the EU. In which case we'd never have left the EU (and we would't have spent endless hours discussing the merits of AV)

One of the great "What If's" of British history.

That's rather deterministic. If Brown had called and won an election in 2007, Cameron may have stayed on anyway but if he didn't, there's every chance that another two years of Brownism (and Balls at the Treasury) would have left Labour in an even worse state and there'd still have been a Tory government, austerity and a Scottish independence vote. Whether there'd have been the same rise of UKIP is a different matter and probably dependent on whether the Lib Dems still ended up in government.

RobD

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784058951189094400

Peace on or off?

The stretched twig of peace is at melting point!

ThreeQuidder

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

Indeed. "Could" is a good sign of scaremongering, in the same way that a headline that starts "Now" is a good sign that the Mail/Express is on a meaningless rant.

Mortimer

Labour reshuffles usually cross two quarters, don't they?

FF43

MTimT said:

FF43 said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

Are you confirming your own bias? :-)

[Bias] Against predictions which seek to predict the unpredictable, yes.

I know what you are saying. But on a betting site?

It's all somewhat pointless. If May holds good to her word on repatriating sovereignty over law and immigration to the UK, the die is cast. I am happy to wait for actual evidence on the impact at this stage.

I think that is partly the case. But within the "Hard Brexit" scenario there is scope to muck up further, or to play it as well as it can be. Theresa May has made several unforced errors on Brexit in the short time she has been in office, IMO

foxinsoxuk

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.

ThreeQuidder

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

Don't you mean it "could" be a good afternoon, Anne?

It means "I hope you have a good afternoon". Originally, I understand, it was "May God give you a good afternoon".

rottenborough

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784057656646496256

Nick Brown. Yeh Gods, I wasn't even aware he was still an MP.

ThreeQuidder

Scott_P said:

@e_casalicchio: I'm hearing there's a "strong chance" Diane Abbott is going to get Shadow Home Secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle.

As well as her current jobs or instead of them?

Sunil_Prasannan

ThreeQuidder said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

Don't you mean it "could" be a good afternoon, Anne?

It means "I hope you have a good afternoon". Originally, I understand, it was "May God give you a good afternoon".

"God "could" give us a good afternoon"

FrancisUrquhart

dr_spyn said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784058951189094400

Peace on or off?

How many day weeks months will this take?

JackW

New Hampshire - Suffolk/Boston Globe

Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/06/clinton-lead-drops-points-new-poll-shows/tSRVOKza1tqirjc2POFR5O/story.html?event=event25

Sunil_Prasannan

rottenborough said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/784057656646496256

Nick Brown. Yeh Gods, I wasn't even aware he was still an MP.

The MP for Clapham Common??

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Quidder, yeah, the cliches usually give away the story.

"Lessons must be learnt" - we colossally screwed something up in a predictable way.

"Institutionally Somethingist" - some of us are swine but we'd rather not resign.

"Despite Brexit" - there's a good news story, probably economic.

"Since Brexit" - there's a bad news story.

MTimT

foxinsoxuk said:

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.

You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.

But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:

"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".

Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.

As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.

FF43

foxinsoxuk said:

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.

Or actually a low probability of one. The consequences of being eaten are serious enough that the precautionary principle should apply

RobD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Quidder, yeah, the cliches usually give away the story.

"Lessons must be learnt" - we colossally screwed something up in a predictable way.

"Institutionally Somethingist" - some of us are swine but we'd rather not resign.

"Despite Brexit" - there's a good news story, probably economic.

"Since Brexit" - there's a bad news story.

Or on the BBC "Growth in 2017 predicted to fall" - growth in 2016 predicted to rise.

AnneJGP

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

Don't you mean it "could" be a good afternoon, Anne?

You suggest that it 'could' be, but probably won't be, a good afternoon? You're probably right.

ThreeQuidder

Sunil_Prasannan said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AnneJGP said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

I am fed up of the word 'could'.

Anything 'could' happen, but then again it probably won't.

This was brought forcibly to my attention by the EU referendum; i.e. stuffed down my throat.

But I'm feeling very jaundiced towards everything at the moment (under the weather).

(Good afternoon, everyone)

Don't you mean it "could" be a good afternoon, Anne?

It means "I hope you have a good afternoon". Originally, I understand, it was "May God give you a good afternoon".

"God "could" give us a good afternoon"

With a Labour reshuffle on? He has!

RobD

Apols if posted before.

http://order-order.com/2016/10/06/voters-back-naming-shaming/

It sure is popular, not sure I am convinced though...

Mortimer

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.

You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.

But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:

"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".

Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.

As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.

I LOVE PB sometimes. Post of the day.

foxinsoxuk

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MTimT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Speedy said:

MTimT said:

Hmm. Talking of confirmation bias, there are consequences of Project Fear. Saw the BBC article headline Hard Brexit 'Could Cost the City GBP38bn' and didn't even bother to read it.

When someone uses the same trick far too many times, people will no longer be tricked.
Governments and the Media have cried "Wolf" so many times no one is listening or reading.

Of course the boy who cried wolf did get scoffed by a wolf!

People forget the point of the parable.

Which is not to cry wolf. Not that there will eventually be a wolf.

Or that one should only cry wolf when there is a wolf. Or at least a high probability of one.

You can claim that the moral of the story is whatever you want.

But the thing with Aesop's Fables is that each story has the moral printed at the end of it, so we don't have to guess or really get to make up our own moral. The actual intended, and written, lesson, from the original greek, is:

"this shows how liars are rewarded: even if they tell the truth, no one believes them".

Note, the moral doesn't say 'wolves exist' or 'wolves might exist'.

As you say, people forget the moral of the story. It seems, you included.

No-one believes them when they tell the truth.

"There is a wolf" was the truth.

rottenborough

ThreeQuidder said:

Scott_P said:

@e_casalicchio: I'm hearing there's a "strong chance" Diane Abbott is going to get Shadow Home Secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle.

As well as her current jobs or instead of them?

Shame, I was hoping she would get Education, and then could spend every TV interview defending her choice of private schooling, whilst telling everyone else they need to go to a comprehensive.