Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited May 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East

The GE17 result from Lewisham East where there's to be a by-election. Looks like a LAB hold on reduced majority on low turnout pic.twitter.com/spDRfIkIyg

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    Primus inter pares
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    Will depend on who the Labour candidate is.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,366
    edited May 8
    Correction:

    Repmain => Remain in title

    EDIT: and

    "That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"

    are you sure?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    Yeah, I don't see Lab losing this. Big question is how far backwards the Tories go...
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,216

    Correction:

    Repmain => Remain in title

    EDIT: and

    "That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"

    are you sure?

    No, it's 1/25. Pity, 25/1 would be fantastic value!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,161
    I

    Correction:

    Repmain => Remain in title

    EDIT: and

    "That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"

    are you sure?

    If someone wants to give me 25/1 on Labour then I'll take that!
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 180
    Brilliantly named Green candidate at the last GE.
    LD vote can only go up from those levels but I can't see them going from lost deposit to actually winning in a year.
    The referendum wasn't on 23rd of May 2016 it was 23rd of June.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182

    Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.

    I demand a judge-led independent inquiry into how TSE keeps bagging all these firsts.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,990
    Until the LD disaster of 2015, they and the Tories scrapped for second place. Heidi A wasn’t THAT far in front of the LD when she was first elected. (17966 vs 11750)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    RobD said:

    Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.

    I demand a judge-led independent inquiry into how TSE keeps bagging all these firsts.
    My first in ages.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,103

    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,481
    edited May 8
    deleted - already said
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,481

    Will depend on who the Labour candidate is.

    Ken?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,322
    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,407

    Until the LD disaster of 2015, they and the Tories scrapped for second place. Heidi A wasn’t THAT far in front of the LD when she was first elected. (17966 vs 11750)

    Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,184

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,731
    RobD said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
    ... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625
    On topic: Off remortgaging the house to take the Lab 25-1.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    edited May 8

    RobD said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
    ... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??
    Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,494
    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,762

    Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.

  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 180

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Tories surely want to keep Corbyn until the 2022 General Election, a new Prime Minister and a much better Tory campaign should see Corbyn comfortably beaten and after that he'll be too old.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,731
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
    ... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??
    Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.
    It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,731

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
    ... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??
    Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.
    It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.
    In any case i was querying why the LDs would want to lend their vote to the Tories, as that would be interpreted as being in support of the Tory Brexit position. Makes no sense at all.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    I like it when by elections are caused by resignations. I don't have to feel ghoulish looking up the majority.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,731

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    Does HYUFD stand for something?
    No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,003
    edited May 8
    Scott_P said:

    Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.

    Now that's a threesome you don't see together very often...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8
    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?

    No, thought not... :D
    ... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??
    Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.
    It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.
    In any case i was querying why the LDs would want to lend their vote to the Tories, as that would be interpreted as being in support of the Tory Brexit position. Makes no sense at all.
    Fair enough, not all Tories votes leave, but I suspect a significant number did. Similarly, it makes no sense for those to vote LD.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,003

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,760
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:

    Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.

    Now that's a threesome you don't see together very often...
    You could call them a trio of famous losers, if you wanted to be cruel.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    Does HYUFD stand for something?
    No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
    I always wonder that.

    Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 11,003

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
    That BC (before coalition) though.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
    Helped somewhat by their grubby deal with the Greens.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,902
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
    That BC (before coalition) though.
    Nah. That was Anno Coalition.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,494
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    Does HYUFD stand for something?
    No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
    I always wonder that.

    Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?
    Haccording Ytothe Ulatest Fconhome Dpoll
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
    Good old working class lad Zac won back the seat at the GE though.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,103
    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8
    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    Scott_P said:
    The EU might have something to say about that. Jeez.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    edited May 8
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    So much for going after IDS’ seat.

    BTW- thanks for the analysis!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,695
    Pulpstar said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach... ;)
    They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.
    Good old working class lad Zac won back the seat at the GE though.
    Yep, salt of the earth Zac "my favourite shop is Londis" Goldsmith.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,990
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    HYUFD was unsuccessful unfortunately. I didn’t catch Sandy Rentoul’s result.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.
    The article is basically a listicle of his top lies/distortions.
    Thus there's a direct correlation between length and him not being worth listening to.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.
    The article is basically a listicle of his top lies/distortions.
    Thus there's a direct correlation between length and him not being worth listening to.
    If only there was a forum through which people could be questioned, and the veracity of their statements debated. I’m not a fan of one person deciding they are not worthy of appearing simply because they think/claim they are a liar.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,103

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    They both lost, but achieved positive swings.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,990
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    They both lost, but achieved positive swings.
    Thank you. Must try and deal witrh my FFS.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003
    RobD said:



    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.

    Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?

    As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,414
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    Does HYUFD stand for something?
    No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
    I always wonder that.

    Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?
    “Hell Yes!” unveiled for debate
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:



    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.

    Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?

    As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
    I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.
    And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
    And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    Scott_P said:
    Well, of course. That isn’t Boris’ department.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,174
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    The EU might have something to say about that. Jeez.
    The House of Lords is the worst excess of the anti-democratic instincts among the upper class, metropolitan elites.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:



    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.

    Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?

    As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
    I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.
    The title of the article is "The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson".
    The sub-header is : "Different opinions are one thing, but Peterson is unworthy of an invitation"

    It's quite clear that the article is a criticism of the decision to invite him, and therefore obviously of those who made that decision.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.
    And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
    And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.
    I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid about ken Livingstone getting an invite.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,782
    So, the suggested Lib Dem strategy is to rally voters to send a message to Labour so that Labour sends a stronger message to the government? Could work, I suppose. Seems a bit protesty but then that's often what local elections are about.

    That said, I'm still doubtful that Brexit is *that* big a driver of votes and there is a lot of positive support for Corbyn, particularly in London. Without those votes, and without tactical Tory/Leave votes, are there enough others left over? Only on very differential turnouts - and most elections don't have disparities of that scale.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,433
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    Does HYUFD stand for something?
    No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
    I always wonder that.

    Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?
    Here's Your Ultimate Floppy.... Disc ?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,003

    rkrkrk said:



    And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
    And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.

    I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid ken Livingstone.
    Well they are different people so he might well have different views on their suitability to be invited!

    Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?
  • MJWMJW Posts: 312
    If I were the Lib Dems I'd be digging through any prominent London Momentumer's social media for the inevitable bonkers stuff before it gets deleted.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,414
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
    Panel?!

    The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.

    They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,414
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
    Panel?!

    The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.

    They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,182
    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    RobD said:



    If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.

    Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?

    As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
    I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.
    The title of the article is "The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson".
    The sub-header is : "Different opinions are one thing, but Peterson is unworthy of an invitation"

    It's quite clear that the article is a criticism of the decision to invite him, and therefore obviously of those who made that decision.
    The title maybe, but the body of text is just a litany of reasons the writer doesn’t agree with the invited speaker. There’s no mention of how he was invited, and how that procedure should be changed.

    At least the people commenting appear sensible... mostly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,736
    edited May 8
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:



    And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
    And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.

    I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid ken Livingstone.
    Well they are different people so he might well have different views on their suitability to be invited!

    Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?
    It is about consistency....Peterson has become this weird hate figure among some that has to be silenced. If you are going to complain on the grounds of intellectual honesty of invitees you better be complaining about all that display those traits.

    I would actually welcome the opportunity to watch red ken try and explain his views under proper challenge.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,695
    Happy Yet Unhinged Factless Declamations
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,962
    Scott_P said:
    The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

    But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

    I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,416
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

    But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

    I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
    or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers

    you mean the guys who have falsified all their performance data and are causing thousands of premature deaths in this country ?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,695
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
    Brexit in a nutshell except it will be long term.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,762
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.

    Or the factories will close
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,103
    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    So much for going after IDS’ seat.

    BTW- thanks for the analysis!
    There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-

    Con 17,529, 60.5%,
    Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
    Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
    Others 2,220, 7.6%.

    That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,481
    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    So much for going after IDS’ seat.

    BTW- thanks for the analysis!
    There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-

    Con 17,529, 60.5%,
    Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
    Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
    Others 2,220, 7.6%.

    That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
    Momentum: winning here!!!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,625
    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    So much for going after IDS’ seat.

    BTW- thanks for the analysis!
    There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-

    Con 17,529, 60.5%,
    Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
    Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
    Others 2,220, 7.6%.

    That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
    Wimbledon (My figures)

    Con 14584
    Lab 9174
    Lib Dem 7797

    3.4% swing to the Tories since GE2017.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,754
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.

    http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson

    Oxford must fall.
    It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...

    banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
    who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.

    As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
    Uninviting is the same as banning.

    And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
    Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!
    But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
    Eh, in my time we let Irving and Griffin speak at the same meeting.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/27/highereducation.studentpoliticseducation
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383
    Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.

    The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,695
    HYUFD said:

    Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.

    The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.

    TELL US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,407
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.

    But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)

    I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
    Reading your views on Brexit from an apparently sensible person is an increasingly surreal experience.

    There is no majority in parliament or the country for anything which disrupts cross-border trade with our neighbours, and in the case of Northern Ireland we have a political and moral obligation to ensure it does not happen. These practical realities will determine where we end up far more than anyone's notions about protecting the 'cause of Brexit'.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.

    Not sure how Sandy did?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.

    The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.

    TELL US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Well I hope the Tories hold second place obviously but we will see how the campaign progresses
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,494
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.

    Not sure how Sandy did?
    A good effort, drawing a bit of enemy fire :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Did a bit of campaigning in Waltham Forest for the Tory candidates in Chingford so pleased the Tories won most votes in Chingford and Woodford Green, though it does seem Ilford and Redbridge will now be Labour for the foreseeable future short of a Tory landslide
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:


    O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.

    Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.

    There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-

    Con 15,910 49.5%,
    Lab 10,940 34.1%
    Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
    Other 2,304 7.2%..

    That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
    Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?
    I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.

    Not sure how Sandy did?
    A good effort, drawing a bit of enemy fire :)
    Thanks, my ward is one that can go Tory at the general election when more Tories come out but tends to go LD otherwise
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,383

    Foxy said:

    Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.

    A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.

    A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.
    Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have it :)
    You’re making a persuasive case for AV.

    As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
    I await with baited breath...
This discussion has been closed.