Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why we should focus much more on leader ratings and less on vo

124»

Comments

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.



    By the way, I thought the part on veterans was superbly argued and if there's one area on which money does need to be spent it's ensuring those who served in the armed forces are properly looked after in civilian life.

    Agreed. I hope his suggestions on this are taken up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:



    snip

    With regard to the centrist party:

    1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting they what do I know.

    2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.

    In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
    I don’t know about May’s government being t69074900993

    I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
    The polling evidence disagrees with Bush.

    An October 2016 Yougov poll found a centrist, 'Stop Brexit' party would get 25.9% and would beat Labour but the Tories would still come top on 34.1%
    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/party-promising-overturn-brexit-would-12069287
    The polling told us that many Labour voters don’t actually like Corbyn’s position on Brexit, it didn’t stop them from voting for him even though the fact he wasn’t an ultra Remainer was obvious.
    True but there was no significant third party pro Remain alternative
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    nielh said:

    nielh said:



    snip

    With

    snip.

    I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
    .

    I've been thinking about this too. Essentially, any new party would in effect have to have a two stage (election) launch - first of all proving viability. To do this it would need to win a significant (above 10, preferably 15%) vote share and gain enough seats to build a group of MPs - say where Lib Dems were pre-2005. The 10% is the easy bit - providing there's some enthusiasm, and you're not led by a total nonentity, you can peel off enough protest votes. We're also going to assume the party either consumes or allies with the Lib Dems - a fair assumption given Clegg's comments and their moribund state. And Stephen Bush is right, in its embryonic state at least, it would be more of a threat to the Tories.

    Where would these seats be, assuming a 2022 election?

    1.) Existing Lib Dem seats, taking away a couple of losses perhaps in the celtic fringe.
    2.) Lib Dem targets - Richmond Park is the obvious Tory one, Cheltenham another, and of course Hallam from Lab.
    3.) Winnable Tory seats in remain areas - not that many, but if the trends from 2017 continue, several in the south, providing you can get past Labour (see below)
    4.) Labour defectors - Labour MPs either pushed out by Momentum or who jump in disgust - where they're a good MP possibly facing the nastiness, they'd stand a chance, but you probably lose more than you win.
    5.) Specific targets - Kate Hoey for example would be vulnerable.

    1.) and 2.) may be winnable now, and gets you maybe up to 15 MPs, and mostly just rebrands the Lib Dems. It gives you a toehold, but not much more. 3.) Depends on the fall out from Brexit - if Corbyn is forced to wave what's perceived as a bad deal through and gets the blame. The Tories will whatever, as those in charge, but it's unlikely leavers will change their mind and become liberal internationalists, they'll live with it as the price. Corbyn will probably bear the brunt as the betrayer of his supporters - even among those who are ardent fans I'm yet to meet a single person who genuinely thinks Lexit works. 4.) Depends on how vicious the Labour war gets. You can see voters blocking a Momentum apparatchik with the inevitable baggage. 4 years ago who'd have gone for an SNP landslide, Corbyn and Brexit?

    Stage 2 is when you're going national, at a further election. That's where you're looking to cannibalise a Labour Party that will either have lost again and still be ploughing on further left as its supporters tire after a decade of this stuff, or that's in government and having to account for its failures.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Floater said:

    Floater said:

    I just don’t sense that there is that much public demand for a boycott for the World Cup. Nor do I see it actually happening.

    Indeed.

    To be brutally frank few people want to be stopped from watching football by Arabs killing Arabs.
    With respect how can you say something like that as little children are being gassed in Syria
    I can say it because I think its true.

    I've not heard anyone mention Syria but I hear people talk about football all the time.

    And people will watch the WC in millions in this country and billions across the world.

    BTW little children have died in conflicts during previous WCs, Olympic Games and other sporting tournaments.
    I find it difficult that anyone could be so dismissive of the gassing in Syria but listening to the Russian Ambassador tonight this is going to get ugly.

    Were you as bothered when NATO drone strikes killed civilians ?
    Did we use gas weapons then?

    NATO tries to strike military targets - Assad / Moscow seem to go out of their way to cause them (civilian ).

    Bunker busters on hospitals anyone?

    Its easy for NATO in its actions with drones and cruise missiles and air strikes from 30,000ft.

    And if mistakes are made or 'collateral damage' inflicted or 'stuff happens' the victims are Arabs or Afghans and nobody really cares.

    But countries fighting for survival or engaged in civil war are a lot less concerned about the 'rules'.

    A look back at British history shows that.
    I'm sorry are you arguing that rules don't matter or they only matter to the West?

    You obviously have missed the point that the victims here are arabs.

    So basically you seem to just be flailing around
    I'm saying people don't give a toss and they'll be watching the World Cup football from Russia in two months.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    notme said:

    Cyclefree said:

    It's brutal; it's horrible; it shouldn't happen.

    But people are weary of the Middle East with its interminable wars and brutality and incomprehensible feuds between groups going back centuries and its cruelty and mess. They don't see what good it does Britain to intervene and they think Britain has spent quite enough treasure and spilt quite enough blood.

    That is why Corbyn's approach - for

    So however immoral or short-sighted or uncaring you think this attitude is I suspect it is shared by quite a lot of people and why people really couldn't care that much that Corbyn is a buddy of a man who gasses children in a far away country of which we know little. They ought to care - because it shows up Corbyn's appalling judgment - and that is something which will affect us here should he ever become PM. But they don't - the majority of them - care that much.
    Indeed.
    There are no good guys or bad guys. How do we stand by and allow children and civilians to be slaughtered with intent?
    We stand by and do this all the time. There are brutal wars and insurgencies going on all the time all over the world in which children and civilians are slaughtered with intent and we turn a blind eye because they are far away and we are weary and don't - frankly - see anything in it for us. Cynically, the only reason we care about the Middle East is because of (a) oil; and (b) we don't want any more of their terrorists on our territory bombing us. Beyond that most of us don't give a toss, really.
    There is a racism of low expectations concerning events in the Middle East and Africa, where violent deaths are shrugged off by many in the West.

    About 5 million have died in the last 20 years in the wars in the Eastern Congo, with very little on the news about it here. Is it really worse to be gassed, rather than hacked to pieces with a machete, or burnt alive? The reality of Civil wars is that brutal deaths are inflicted on civilians, who comprise about 90% of casualties in modern wars.
    Is it racism of low expectations? Or is it a belief that brutality seems endemic based on the history of the last 60? 100? years. Whatever I agree with you that we are very good at turning a blind eye to equally violent wars elsewhere and that we care more when the civilians being hurt are close to home.

    Lobbing a missile or two in Syria's general direction to satisfy the "something must be done" brigade will achieve the square root of bugger all.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Foxy said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Anazina said:

    Yorkcity said:

    You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.

    Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox

    The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
    Absolutely

    I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
    In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
    Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
    If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/03/09/england-boycott-russia-world-cup-could-see-banned-2022/

    Not if there is a call to boycott from the allies
    France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
    IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
    I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
    For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
    Especially if there is a widespread boycott.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    Trumpton

    It appears the FBI are turning over the office of Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime lawyer. And his longstay hotel suite.

    Syria: Reportedly probable rather than possible that the US (and France) will launch some kind of strike against Syrian regime targets.
  • Sky correspondent from the UN said that what she witnessed was the US Ambassador signalling that the US is giving up on the UN. That seems to chime with something Trump said some time ago
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    New thread...
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:


    I agree with all of that but I also think it is time that our defence budget was given a higher priority. We have an undisciplined thug playing on the world stage and he seems to revel in every piece of mischief he can find. We need to be better positioned to respond. Achieving energy independence from Russia should also be Europe's priority.

    We could spend 5% of our GDP on defence and someone would say it isn't enough. As Dura Ace opined this morning we could get a much more efficient and effective defence policy by challenging the Armed Forces as an institution and establishing new priorities.

    By the way, I thought the part on veterans was superbly argued and if there's one area on which money does need to be spent it's ensuring those who served in the armed forces are properly looked after in civilian life.

    Agree very strongly with your second point.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Foxy said:

    AnneJGP said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Anazina said:

    Yorkcity said:

    You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.

    Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox

    The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
    Absolutely

    I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
    In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
    Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
    If England boycott the Tournament, not only will we not be hosting a World Cup, we won't be competing in subsequent ones:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/03/09/england-boycott-russia-world-cup-could-see-banned-2022/

    Not if there is a call to boycott from the allies
    France's position may prove interesting on this, especially if Russia is seen to be blocking the investigation of the latest atrocity in Syria. Macron seems keen to act with the US and to generally show himself to be a significant player on the international stage. I think if France said they were not going we would do likewise.
    IIRC, from the last time the idea of a sporting boycott was floated, there's no way for the government to insist that our people don't take part.
    I think it quite possible that Russia 18 will be the last ever World Cup. Qatar will be a farce, and the mooted expansion to 48 teams makes it too unweidy for more than a handfull of countries.
    For World Cup betting,I think Russia is a good trading bet this year as confirmation bias amongst the UK odds-compiliers should mean value in backing them.They are the home team and the world will be against them,perfect conditions for a Russian victory on the football pitch.Good bet for quarter finals at least.
    Especially if there is a widespread boycott.
    Alternatively, all teams could do a Boycott.

    Dribble the ball along at walking pace, line up very carefully on an open goal and miss, all the time shouting about their grandmothers.

    It would probably be more effective than just not turning up.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited April 2018
    DavidL said:

    Floater said:

    US states that even if the UN fails to act - it will.

    The ever interesting comment by @Yokel earlier in the thread indicates the way that this might go. A large scale combined US/Israel air operation with a heavy missile input is likely. Corbyn will no doubt have the same impartial position on that.
    Not sure the Israelis would be working in that way but last nights strike, bearing mind the alert status of Syrian and Russian AD forces was either/or/and opportunist, extremely cocky/ a well timed effort designed to help test responses.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    nielh said:



    snip

    With regard to the centrist party:

    1. It is very unlikely to go anywhere because of the limitations of FPTP, but it could be very damaging to Labour. I find it very odd the way that people like Paul Mason and Owen Jones have this 'bring it on' attitude. Splitting they what do I know.

    2. The second issue is that the definition of centrism is highly flawed, as per your second point. It is essentially reverting to Blairite definition of where the centre is, ignoring the last two decades of history. In my own experience people have changed, in that they a) distrust politicians and those in power enormously, b) fail to see how a neoliberal capitalist system benefits them (ie: house prices rising, wages stagnating, job security decreasing, c) have witnessed massive changes through both EU and non EU migration, particularly in certain parts of the country and are silently very concerned about it. To add to this list, there is no great love of the man on the street for the marketisation of public services. People are also tired of wealth inequality, which we have a lot more of now than we did 20 years ago. There are very few enthusiasts in the Asda car park for university tuition fees. Generally, 8 years of cuts also mean that people are much more sympathetic to the poor, and to public servants, and these groups can no longer be blamed for systemic failures in government policy.

    In my view, the true centrist vote goes to the vision of conservativism espoused by Theresa May, because it at least tries to address the points I have set out above. However, I don't quite buy it myself. I am deeply suspicious that it is all a massive distraction, to get Brexit through.
    I don’t know about May’s government being t69074900993

    I agree with your second paragraph very much though.
    The polling evidence disagrees with Bush.

    An October 2016 Yougov poll found a centrist, 'Stop Brexit' party would get 25.9% and would beat Labour but the Tories would still come top on 34.1%
    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/party-promising-overturn-brexit-would-12069287
    The polling told us that many Labour voters don’t actually like Corbyn’s position on Brexit, it didn’t stop them from voting for him even though the fact he wasn’t an ultra Remainer was obvious.
    True but there was no significant third party pro Remain alternative
    The Lib Dems.

This discussion has been closed.