Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast: Would Remain win a second re

1246

Comments

  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Away from the internal party gossip, some other interesting polling on a key issue:

    https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/09/public-backs-free-personal-care-older-people?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

    Hardly surprising at this time but of course no one knows or has calculated what kind of tax and NI rises would be needed to provide that free care.

    It really cheeses me off when things are presented as "free" - see Scottish Student fees - the question should be "Do you support free University fees for better off Scottish students at the expense of poorer Scottish students being denied places?"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,178
    edited September 2018
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By which time she will have agreed the withdrawal agreement and transition period with the EU in all likelihood ensuring she stays until next March to get it through and given the lack of acceptable alternatives to MPs possibly now for years beyond.

    May can say she is the only thing stopping a Corbyn v Boris/Mogg next general election
    Precisely - the Conference was their very last opportunity (in truth it was probably already too late) to stop May - giving her a 'stay of execution' is just an excuse for 'we haven't got the numbers now, maybe we will later'.
    Indeed, it is increasingly possible now May will lead the Tories through to the next general election given the strong possibility that if she went Boris or Mogg would replace her
    That's been clear since she survived last year's GE and conference debacles.

    This year's conference can hold no fears for her, as how can it possibly be as bad as last year's?

    Edit: the one caveat I have to May leading the Tories into the next GE is that, while she's clearly no quitter, the stress levels must be enormous; that may be her departure in the end.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,980
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The trouble with Boris going down in flames is that it might make the membership agitate for JRM even more.

    Tonight is a big moment for the ERG. Boris star has fallen and if he is not banging the drum there is no one else near his gravitas to leavers
    Oh for goodness sake almost everybody in the country knows Boris is a womaniser and that has been the case for years, if voters wanted someone with the Pope's private life they would have told pollsters they would not vote for Boris years ago.
    And now they know he's a womaniser who isn't trusted by his wife

    If his wife can't trust him, who can?
    Voters are electing a PM not the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury, almost half the males in the country have had affairs and more so if they have power and money
    Generally, women (more than half the electorate) aren't keen on 'men who have affairs' (and men vice versa) - but I think you are missing the bigger point - "trust". If his wife can't trust him - can you?
    Bob Dole tried that tactic against Bill Clinton in 1996 and it fell flat, voters are not looking for a Saint just someone with some charisma who can do the job well
    Well, that second criteria eliminates Boris! He was a spectacularly useless Foreign Sec.
    He was a relatively successful Mayor of London, Remainers disliked his stint as Foreign Secretary after Brexit but that is no surprise
    I’m a Londoner and a Leaver

    In his first term as Mayor he was mediocre. His second term was worse. He was a terrible foreign secretary. None of that gives me confidence he’d be a good PM
    Boris and Mogg have more support combined than all the other candidates put together in the latest ConHome Tory members poll.

    If May goes expect an anti Chequers Deal hard line Brexiteer to replace her as the ERG will ensure an anti Chequers Deal candidate gets to the final two as the right did with Leadsom, Davis and IDS
    You put too much faith in polls. Especially ConHome polls*.

    I can see Davies as a caretaker PM. More likely Hunt or Javid will win.

    * and I know they were the least worst pollster in one case 13 years ago
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,698

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    What's interesting in that sppof and obviously antisemitic Daily Mail is how believable it is as a real Daily Mail cover. The only giveaway is the target of their animus. They simply wouldn't dare.
  • Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
  • Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    whilst doing old school 'playing the man not ball'

  • Roger said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    What's interesting in that sppof and obviously antisemitic Daily Mail is how believable it is as a real Daily Mail cover. The only giveaway is the target of their animus. They simply wouldn't dare.
    Maybe that's because its about a 99% chance to be a real Daily Mail page with some words changed
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Away from the internal party gossip, some other interesting polling on a key issue:

    https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/09/public-backs-free-personal-care-older-people?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

    Hardly surprising at this time but of course no one knows or has calculated what kind of tax and NI rises would be needed to provide that free care.

    It really cheeses me off when things are presented as "free" - see Scottish Student fees - the question should be "Do you support free University fees for better off Scottish students at the expense of poorer Scottish students being denied places?"
    On that we are in agreement Ms V. There is no such thing as "free" anything

    I always loved Mrs T's statement ; "The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money"
  • I read the whole thread and it is shameful that Labour sat on such vital evidence. Utterly shameful.

    How can ANYONE believe that they are fit to lead this country?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By which time she will have agreed the withdrawal agreement and transition period with the EU in all likelihood ensuring she stays until next March to get it through and given the lack of acceptable alternatives to MPs possibly now for years beyond.

    May can say she is the only thing stopping a Corbyn v Boris/Mogg next general election
    Precisely - the Conference was their very last opportunity (in truth it was probably already too late) to stop May - giving her a 'stay of execution' is just an excuse for 'we haven't got the numbers now, maybe we will later'.
    Indeed, it is increasingly possible now May will lead the Tories through to the next general election given the strong possibility that if she went Boris or Mogg would replace her
    That's been clear since she survived last year's GE and conference debacles.

    This year's conference can hold no fears for her, as how can it possibly be as bad as last year's?

    Edit: the one caveat I have to May leading the Tories into the next GE is that, while she's clearly no quitter, the stress levels must be enormous; that may be her departure in the end.
    You don't think the conference can be as bad as last year? How about delegates booing her when she talks about Brexit. Is she going to go the whole speech without mentioning Chequers?
  • Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Not to mention the rather nice pension and fees for appearing on RT etc. All salaries are equal but some are more equal than others. Oh yes, the Union barons do quite well too
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,070
    Get used to it. Given Corbyn’s attitude to the press, should he come to power we’ll probably only be allowed to read reports from them, Russia Today and the Morning Star.

    40 years or so ago we had groups here threatening death to a British citizen at the behest of an Iranian religious/political leader. Now we have the propaganda arm of that same state filming a meeting at which a Labour MP is being criticised for her views on Israel. Her leader cannot apparently be criticised for his opposing views. He is having a “debate”. When she disagrees, it is not a debate. No she has to be shut up.

    If socialists should be on the side of the oppressed not the oppressors, as @Roger tells us, why the hell is the Labour leader on the side of the Iranian regime, one of the biggest oppressors around - of its own people, of women, of gays, of Jews, of all minorities, a regime which currently has cruelly locked up and is treating abominably a British woman and keeping her apart from her own child?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,178

    Mr. Pioneers, minor point, but it's bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram, in this case with a bell around its neck, thus helping to guide other sheep.

    Important to know whether it's wether or weather.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,958
    Morning again all :)

    I have to confess I like Blair - I did then and I do now. My two problems with him were first his continuation of Conservative centralisation - in terms of the monitoring of and interference with local Government, the Blair years were horrendous - and second, Iraq.

    It's not always remembered that his election to the Labour leadership following the death of John Smith not only hammered one of the last nails into the Conservative coffin but also did for the Lib Dems who in 1993 and early 1994 were regularly polling above 20%. Blair siphoned more votes off the LDs than the Conservatives.

    Indeed, I'll go further - had Smith led Labour in 1997, Labour would still have won but the LDs would have polled much closer to the Conservatives than happened with Blair - the gap in 1997 was 13% but if it had been nearer 4-5% we'd have seen more LD seats and fewer Conservative seats.

    Blair saved the Conservative Party - you heard it first here. He also paved the way for the Coalition as both the Conservatives and LDs came to realise imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose their own "Blairs".

    I've never voted Labour but had you given me a forced choice between Blair and respectively Major, IDS and Howard I'd have chosen Blair every time.

    There have been three seminal political events this century so far - 9/11, the Global Financial Crash and the EU Referendum. They are inter-connected but the ramifications of them have and continue to affect our political debate and discourse today and will do so for a decade at least.
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 297
    edited September 2018
    RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    When someone tells you they are "kind and gentle" it's best to assume they aren't.

    Same as subjective, lengthy bios, they describe what people want you to think of them, not what they are.
  • Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Ken Livingstone once said, apropos some scandal or other in the Major years, that most Conservatives take a massive pay cut on entering parliament, whereas for most Labour MPs it is the most they've earned in their lives.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited September 2018

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Away from the internal party gossip, some other interesting polling on a key issue:

    https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/09/public-backs-free-personal-care-older-people?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

    Hardly surprising at this time but of course no one knows or has calculated what kind of tax and NI rises would be needed to provide that free care.

    It really cheeses me off when things are presented as "free" - see Scottish Student fees - the question should be "Do you support free University fees for better off Scottish students at the expense of poorer Scottish students being denied places?"
    Or more accurately do you support free university fees for Scottish young people AND citizens of other EU member states paid for with the taxes of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish even though English, Welsh and Northern Irish young people have to pay for tuition at Scottish universities.

    I think the issue anyway with social care is the arbitrary division between social care and health care - particularity in the context of what the NHS will fund in terms of free continuing healthcare. That is a postcode lottery and a scandal which causes huge stress to families when elderly relatives are at the end of their lives.

    If we took the function off councils for social care and had one provider of both as in Ireland it would be a much easier system to negotiate. Of course it doesn't get round the payment issue - why should someone with £5m of assets get free home care but someone with only £30k in assets have to pay full home care charges - just because of whether the asset is held in a £5m house or is held as £30k in a savings account. Cos that is how positively evil and rotten the current system is - you can of course sell houses or place charges on them so the cost is born by those inheriting the £5m house via the estate and there is no impact on the elderly person during their life.

    Of course the dementia tax at least tried to highlight that rottenness but May did an appalling job of explaining it. No one cared about the elderly needing care - all people were interested in was keeping bigger inheritances. How low the vanity of ever rising house prices has taken us.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,178
    RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    You've spent time as a member of all three parties?
  • RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    When someone tells you they are "kind and gentle" it's best to assume they aren't.

    Subjective, lengthy bios are a good guide to what people are hiding
    A good general rule is that when someone asserts something about themselves, it's in question.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 29,967

    Mr. Pioneers, minor point, but it's bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram, in this case with a bell around its neck, thus helping to guide other sheep.

    Important to know whether it's wether or weather.
    Especially if trying to recruit at the Met Office..... "What do you mean, I'm to become a wether man?"
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,178
    stodge said:

    Morning again all :)

    I have to confess I like Blair - I did then and I do now. My two problems with him were first his continuation of Conservative centralisation - in terms of the monitoring of and interference with local Government, the Blair years were horrendous - and second, Iraq.

    It's not always remembered that his election to the Labour leadership following the death of John Smith not only hammered one of the last nails into the Conservative coffin but also did for the Lib Dems who in 1993 and early 1994 were regularly polling above 20%. Blair siphoned more votes off the LDs than the Conservatives.

    Indeed, I'll go further - had Smith led Labour in 1997, Labour would still have won but the LDs would have polled much closer to the Conservatives than happened with Blair - the gap in 1997 was 13% but if it had been nearer 4-5% we'd have seen more LD seats and fewer Conservative seats.

    Blair saved the Conservative Party - you heard it first here. He also paved the way for the Coalition as both the Conservatives and LDs came to realise imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose their own "Blairs".

    I've never voted Labour but had you given me a forced choice between Blair and respectively Major, IDS and Howard I'd have chosen Blair every time.

    There have been three seminal political events this century so far - 9/11, the Global Financial Crash and the EU Referendum. They are inter-connected but the ramifications of them have and continue to affect our political debate and discourse today and will do so for a decade at least.

    +1 I agree with Stodge
  • RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    If you discover what motivates DUP and Sinn Fein voters, please drop Karen Bradley a line.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 11,178

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By which time she will have agreed the withdrawal agreement and transition period with the EU in all likelihood ensuring she stays until next March to get it through and given the lack of acceptable alternatives to MPs possibly now for years beyond.

    May can say she is the only thing stopping a Corbyn v Boris/Mogg next general election
    Precisely - the Conference was their very last opportunity (in truth it was probably already too late) to stop May - giving her a 'stay of execution' is just an excuse for 'we haven't got the numbers now, maybe we will later'.
    Indeed, it is increasingly possible now May will lead the Tories through to the next general election given the strong possibility that if she went Boris or Mogg would replace her
    That's been clear since she survived last year's GE and conference debacles.

    This year's conference can hold no fears for her, as how can it possibly be as bad as last year's?

    Edit: the one caveat I have to May leading the Tories into the next GE is that, while she's clearly no quitter, the stress levels must be enormous; that may be her departure in the end.
    You don't think the conference can be as bad as last year? How about delegates booing her when she talks about Brexit. Is she going to go the whole speech without mentioning Chequers?
    Let's see shall we - that would certainly be interesting.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    When someone tells you they are "kind and gentle" it's best to assume they aren't.

    Subjective, lengthy bios are a good guide to what people are hiding
    A good general rule is that when someone asserts something about themselves, it's in question.
    Yes. Genuinely compassionate and empathetic people don't go around telling people about it, truly successful, confident folk don't need to brag. Tell tale insecurity.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,064
    He's definitely taking out the trash before a tilt at the top job. I wonder who our Melania will be? Roxanne Pallett?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,112
    It's that old AI theoretical test. If you replace one neurone at a time in your brain with a mechanical one capable of performing exactly the same function, at what point does the brain stop being you and become artificial?

    Likewise the Labour Party. At what point does it stop being @RochdalePioneers' beloved Party of Purity and become instead a vile, racist-indulgent sh&thole of a Party?

  • brendan16 said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
    'Rich' is relative. What you are saying is true, but try telling that to someone struggling to raise three kids on an income of £27k.
  • brendan16 said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
    Do you have a reputable source for that £30 million?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,608

    stodge said:

    Morning again all :)

    I have to confess I like Blair - I did then and I do now. My two problems with him were first his continuation of Conservative centralisation - in terms of the monitoring of and interference with local Government, the Blair years were horrendous - and second, Iraq.

    It's not always remembered that his election to the Labour leadership following the death of John Smith not only hammered one of the last nails into the Conservative coffin but also did for the Lib Dems who in 1993 and early 1994 were regularly polling above 20%. Blair siphoned more votes off the LDs than the Conservatives.

    Indeed, I'll go further - had Smith led Labour in 1997, Labour would still have won but the LDs would have polled much closer to the Conservatives than happened with Blair - the gap in 1997 was 13% but if it had been nearer 4-5% we'd have seen more LD seats and fewer Conservative seats.

    Blair saved the Conservative Party - you heard it first here. He also paved the way for the Coalition as both the Conservatives and LDs came to realise imitation was the sincerest form of flattery and chose their own "Blairs".

    I've never voted Labour but had you given me a forced choice between Blair and respectively Major, IDS and Howard I'd have chosen Blair every time.

    There have been three seminal political events this century so far - 9/11, the Global Financial Crash and the EU Referendum. They are inter-connected but the ramifications of them have and continue to affect our political debate and discourse today and will do so for a decade at least.

    +1 I agree with Stodge
    +1 too. I think he diverged from me and indeed from most members in his latter years as PM - even as an MP I didn't know he had become quite as committed to privatisation as The Answer for Public Services as his memoirs made clear, and since leaving Parliament I do think some of his consultancies have been unwise. But he remains an interesting, thoughtful exponent of traditional social democratic/christian democratic views and he's always worth hearing. I also think he did a lot of good in the earlier years of government.

    We need to look at public figures with more nuance - very few are either incomparably glorious or unprincipled scoundrels. There's scope for see politicians with differing views as interesting people with whom one often disagrees. But the party has moved on from some of Tony's views for better or worse, as he and everyone else recognises.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 12,411
    edited September 2018
    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,020
    Seems odd to let Press TV have almost exclusive coverage of vote on deselecting Joan Ryan in Enfield North.



    The writing style looks familiar.
  • Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    Current value of £310,000?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,608
    edited September 2018

    RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    You've spent time as a member of all three parties?
    FWIW I think that most people join parties initially because they like them rather than becuase they hate someone else. Quite soon, though, the competitive instinct comes to the fore, and they start seeing the world like football team supporters. It's not my impression that the parties differ greatly in that.

    That said, very few people active in politics to the extent of being an MP or a councillor intensely dislike everyone in other parties. Hatred doesn't survive contact with "the enemy" for long - one discovers that they're generally quite agreeable so long as one stays off particularly contentious subjects.

    We see it in operation here. How many of us really hate each other?
  • RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    When someone tells you they are "kind and gentle" it's best to assume they aren't.

    Subjective, lengthy bios are a good guide to what people are hiding
    A good general rule is that when someone asserts something about themselves, it's in question.
    Yes. Genuinely compassionate and empathetic people don't go around telling people about it, truly successful, confident folk don't need to brag. Tell tale insecurity.
    Trumps in trouble then
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    I would say in most of UK the house price maybe would have added a few percent, but some boom areas could have resulted in some crazy pricing. If it was a new build lucky to get the money you paid for it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646
    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.
  • RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    When someone tells you they are "kind and gentle" it's best to assume they aren't.

    Subjective, lengthy bios are a good guide to what people are hiding
    A good general rule is that when someone asserts something about themselves, it's in question.
    Yes. Genuinely compassionate and empathetic people don't go around telling people about it, truly successful, confident folk don't need to brag. Tell tale insecurity.
    Trumps in trouble then
    His boasting is probably the worlds best example of the point I am making. Does anyone think it doesn't make him look insecure and needy?
  • DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck, what voting system do they use, is it the outdated FPTP or the greatest voting system known to anyone who is woman born, AV?
  • Mr. L, good luck*.

    *To you or your opponents, as applicable.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 12,411
    notme said:

    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    I would say in most of UK the house price maybe would have added a few percent, but some boom areas could have resulted in some crazy pricing. If it was a new build lucky to get the money you paid for it.
    Over 100 years old near city centre with garden.

    Selling it to buy a new build.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 12,411
    Ooh, another entry in the "glad I don't live in America file"

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 56,190
    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    Dunno, the house I bought recently for 310 was last sold for 250 in 2014, though they had had the bathroom redone, fireplace, kitchen, driveway, garage asbestos removal and electric door, new downstairs shower room installed, log burner put in and solar panels added.
  • brendan16 said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
    Do you have a reputable source for that £30 million?
    Wasn't it Blair himself when he said he was £1 behind you?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,746

    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    Current value of £310,000?
    House price inflation at 5% would put it at 320, at 10% 400.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,608
    Cyclefree said:

    Our very own @NickPalmer must be glad he’s still not an MP. Wasn’t he Chair of Labour Friends of Israel at one point?
    No, but on the Executive. I had a certain amount of criticism over it which I never regarded as anti-semitic - simply people who disagreed that it was possible to feel friendly to a country whose government had some horrible policies. I disagreed with the country-government association. Sometimes colleagues disagree with you - that's politics.

    I think that centrists (including Joan, who I like and respect) will be reselected if they're prepared to confirm that they'll support a Labour government under the current leadership, while reserving the right to disagree on non-confidence issues (they can reasonably point to the umpteen occasions when JC did exactly that). If not, probably not - a Labour candidate who didn't want a Labour government would simply be a contradiction.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited September 2018

    brendan16 said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
    Do you have a reputable source for that £30 million?
    Given Cameron denied its £30m back in 2009 but never stated an actual figure then suggests its probably a fair sum - and will be even higher post current and future inheritances. Either way he has earned far more from property price inflation and inheritances than by working - at least up to June 2016.

    Cameron's first property purchase - a mere one bed flat admittitedly in Notting Hill - has 'earned' him the equivalent of the PM's salary for a decade. One involved hard work the latter simply derived from right place right time. And we did of course as with many other MPs during the 80s, 90s and early 2000s help to pay their mortgages to expand their property wealth - just a shame as with social care we didn't place a charge on said properties so we got the taxpayers money back when they sell at huge profits!
  • brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Another day in Class War, sorry I mean Labour:

    As a backbench MP, Williamson earns £77k a year, plus expenses. He has been an MP for six years on-and-off.

    Most people can only dream of earning that sort of salary, with the average UK salary being about 50k less.

    Williamson *is* rich. Corbyn *is* rich. Of courses, they're the *right* sort of rich ...
    Rich these days is about assets not income. Cameron earned £145k a year as PM his wealth was £30m.

    These days someone earning £77k in London without other savings or assets would struggle to raise a mortgage to buy a small house in Dagenham! Hardly a sign of being 'rich'.
    Do you have a reputable source for that £30 million?
    Given Cameron denied its £30m back in 2009 but never stated an actual figure then suggests its probably a fair sum - and will be even higher post current and future inheritances. Either way he has earned far more from property price inflation and inheritances than by working - at least up to June 2016.

    Cameron's first property purchase - a mere one bed flat admittitedly in Notting Hill - has 'earned' him the equivalent of the PM's salary for a decade. One involved hard work the latter simply derived from right place right time. And we did of course as with many other MPs during the 80s, 90s and early 2000s help to pay their mortgages to expand their property wealth - just a shame as with social care we didn't place a charge on said properties so we got the taxpayers money back when they sell at huge profits!
    So no reputable source and a clear denial from Dave.

    Thanks for clearing that up then.
  • Mr. Pioneers, we'll see if there's a split. But if the moderate frogs don't jump soon, they'll be boiled.

    Starting a new party is difficult under FPTP but it's a hell of a lot easier if you're the official Opposition and have 100+ MPs to start with. If those MPs just retire, accept the Cult of Jezbollah, or are deselected, the major presence of the left in British politics won't be split. It'll just be so far to the left they think marching with hammers and sickles is normal human behaviour.

    Still, I'm sure Corbyn will lay a wreath for the fallen moderates.

    Its not the party thats the problem. Its the deranged entryist fucks who have swept in who think its solidarity to invite in fucking Press TV who can air a special of their meeting inbetween a programme explaining the evils of Israel and why it needs to be swept into the sea and why gay men need tl be persecuted and executed.

    We cannot leave. We will not leave. Because if we do these fuckwads hand the country to the Tories.
    It's too late.
    Join us in the North East Party and help build a reasonable progressive alternative.
    Build a Tory majority having split the left you mean
    Is that what the SNP did in Scotland?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,608
    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Exciting! May your wishes come true, whatever on reflection they may be...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 56,190
    @Alistair Who is the housebuilder for the newbuild ?
  • GazGaz Posts: 45

    RoyalBlue said:

    People like RochdalePioneers will still be members and saying it’s their party when the El Al charters are taking off from Heathrow and Gatwick, and the tumbleweed blows down Golders Green high street.

    For lots of Labour members, it does come down to intense dislike or hatred of ‘the Tories’ before all else. This is quite different to what motivates Tory and Lib Dem members, in my experience.
    You've spent time as a member of all three parties?
    FWIW I think that most people join parties initially because they like them rather than becuase they hate someone else. Quite soon, though, the competitive instinct comes to the fore, and they start seeing the world like football team supporters. It's not my impression that the parties differ greatly in that.

    That said, very few people active in politics to the extent of being an MP or a councillor intensely dislike everyone in other parties. Hatred doesn't survive contact with "the enemy" for long - one discovers that they're generally quite agreeable so long as one stays off particularly contentious subjects.

    We see it in operation here. How many of us really hate each other?
    I would have to disagree a little on that. I'm a Tory Cllr, and I married a Labour Cllr. Some have found that very very difficult. Incomprehensible to some. Friendship groups totally destroyed. And while there are most certainly a few who have been very supportive, its been a difficult process.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,701
    If these people think Israel is a racist endeavour because it was created as a Jewish state for Jewish people, then by that metric Poland is also a racist endeavour. Created as a Polish state for Polish people. Expulsion of Germans and all from what was once Prussia.
  • Barnesian said:

    Alistair said:

    Remember that incredibly tricky "lawyerly trick" question that Kavanaugh was asked during the confirmation hearing, the one where Kavanaugh acted like he'd never even heard of the law firm?

    Turns out he's close friends with an attorney who works at the firm.

    The Republicans really are still sore about Bork and are looking to settle scores.

    Kamala Harris is a star. No wonder she is favourite for Democrat nominee. She ticks all the boxes. She is number 46. At 10s on Betfair.
    OGH is on holiday *again* so in his absence:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/18/my-661-long-shot-bet-for-the-2020-white-house-race-demcratic-senator-kamala-harris-from-california/
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 1,746

    HYUFD said:

    Boris would also appeal though to the 7% now backing UKIP
    Big deal. So would Nick Griffin doesn't mean squat.

    58% of the Tories is more than the 7% of the Tommy Robinson party.
    Think HYUFD means the 7% who support UKIP not 7% of UKIP supporters. Still not enough to make BoJo anything other than a dead duck in the future PM stakes.
    Surely if Tommy Robinson joins UKIP it will boost the Tories.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646

    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck, what voting system do they use, is it the outdated FPTP or the greatest voting system known to anyone who is woman born, AV?
    As there are only 2 candidates this time it is a straightforward FPTP but when we have elections with 3 or more candidates we have a complex system of transferable votes that would qualify as AV.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 29,967
    Scott_P said:
    Well then, let's all hope he can add to that glorious record of success - with another five or ten years away from the levers of power.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 20,623
    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Best wishes David
  • The Labour Party..what the f*** has happened to you?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646
    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    I'm going to go for £295k. I think anything over £300k would suggest that you bought well, anything under £290k and you probably bought new.
  • DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck! I often wonder if those who have actually stood for elected office have a greater respect for democracy than those who have yet to. This is something that is completely beyond your control and your future is in the electorate's hands - until you've tried it, there is nothing else like it!

    Nice website:

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates/governance/office-bearers
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 20,623
    Scott_P said:
    new boat required

    different skipper would also help
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 21,112
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    I'm going to go for £295k. I think anything over £300k would suggest that you bought well, anything under £290k and you probably bought new.
    Good luck with the election as has been said elsewhere whatever actual result you want.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?

    I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.

    Just saying.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 5,701
    Bellway built our new-build in Newcastle upon Tyne. It's been 4 months and it hasn't fallen down yet!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,070
    This may be controversial but hear me out.

    Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?

    The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.

    The leader cannot be someone who is in the Lords. So why should they be someone who is not even an MP? How can such a person possibly hold the government to account?

    Party members tend to be more committed than normal voters. That may be great from the perspective of getting people to deliver leaflets but is a problem, IMO, precisely because - being so committed - they are unlike normal voters. Having MPs and leaders beholden to party members seems to me to risk them becoming narrower rather than more open in their outlook. See the current Tory party obsessing about having a replacement Leaver leader the party members will like as if the rest of us don’t count. Ditto Labour.

    MPs have the estimable advantage of being elected by voters, most of whom are not party members. That ought to give them a better chance of connecting with what most voters are actually interested in than if they only listen to party members. Of course, that may not work in safe seats where they weigh the votes but that raises the issue of electoral reform.

    It may be an old-fashioned view - and I expect to be shot down in flames - but if Parliament is to matter and if we really want MPs to listen to voters then I think we should be moving away from the current fad of making party members the be-all and end-all. It is narrowing the concerns of parties and making them self-righteous, with all the nastiness and intolerance which goes with that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646

    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck! I often wonder if those who have actually stood for elected office have a greater respect for democracy than those who have yet to. This is something that is completely beyond your control and your future is in the electorate's hands - until you've tried it, there is nothing else like it!

    Nice website:

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates/governance/office-bearers
    I stood as a local Councillor many years ago for the SDP but that was on the strict understanding I would not win since I didn't have time to do it. I really didn't need to worry. Hopefully this one will be closer.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,973
    Alistair said:

    Fun Quiz Time:

    5 years ago I bought my house in Edinburgh for £250,000. Today I get the results of the home report as we put it on the market - what do you think it will be valued at now in 2018?

    And what level of increase do you think would classify as 'reasonable' and what level is 'insane'

    https://houseprices.io/
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,850
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?

    I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.

    Just saying.

    Interesting - this was the first one I have listened to, I have a 45 minute drive to work now so it was perfect, will certainly be listening to in future as it was pretty absorbing and contained some decent in-depth analysis of subsamples etc that you couldn’t do in a short format. By way of contrast I pretty much never watch videos because you can do anything else at the same time, and if I’m going to single-task then it’s generally much quicker to read information than watch it in video form.

    It would be interesting to address the same agenda side by side in both formats and see what the reaction was.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 831
    Painful decisions have to be made I suspect, Labour moderates must stop Corbyn becoming PM and if that takes a split then that what it requires.

    Hoping he's going to stand down and some center left candidate will take over ready to realign the party is unrealistic and delusional. It's going to take a good decade after Corbyn has gone to purge that hard left element of the party.
  • Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.

    Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/06/ireland-hopes-side-deal-with-eu-could-allow-it-friction-free-trade-across-border

    Sounds like 'cakeism' to me. What if the UK wants to check them?
  • Cyclefree said:

    This may be controversial but hear me out.

    Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?

    The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.

    Because to have to sell the benefits of membership to the members to get cash in, and having influence is a major selling point.

    Remember the Tories used to have MP only votes. Wasn't that until IDS??
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Excellent podcast, but can I comment on the format?

    I don't know if it is the internet which has fcked my attention span or if it is incipient dementia, but either way, it's fcked. That being so, consider the relative attraction of the offer of a 40 minute podcast with two advertised weighty topics, vs RCS's post yesterday correctly adverised as covering 5 questions in 10 minutes, with a nice big clickable youtube video at the top of the page, with the promise of cats in it. And compare and contrast the amount of below the line discussion of the RCS video vs today's podcast.

    Just saying.

    I agree. The podcasts are far too long. When I have the time to listen to them I really enjoy them but that does not happen often enough. The BTL discussion on these threads suggests I am not alone in having this problem.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck! I often wonder if those who have actually stood for elected office have a greater respect for democracy than those who have yet to. This is something that is completely beyond your control and your future is in the electorate's hands - until you've tried it, there is nothing else like it!

    Nice website:

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates/governance/office-bearers
    I stood as a local Councillor many years ago for the SDP but that was on the strict understanding I would not win since I didn't have time to do it. I really didn't need to worry. Hopefully this one will be closer.
    Are you standing against the incumbent or is it a 'one term' office?
  • DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,070
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck! I often wonder if those who have actually stood for elected office have a greater respect for democracy than those who have yet to. This is something that is completely beyond your control and your future is in the electorate's hands - until you've tried it, there is nothing else like it!

    Nice website:

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates/governance/office-bearers
    I stood as a local Councillor many years ago for the SDP but that was on the strict understanding I would not win since I didn't have time to do it. I really didn't need to worry. Hopefully this one will be closer.
    Best of luck!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    In other exciting news I am today standing for election as Chairman of Faculty Services Ltd, the service company of the Scottish bar. In fine legal tradition this is a somewhat drawn out process with voting starting today and continuing to 3.00pm Tuesday. I am having surprising difficulty in finding any markets on this, not even on Paddy Power, so my inside knowledge is of little use to you all from a betting perspective.

    The winner gets mountains of work and fairly endless grief for absolutely no money whatsoever. I may be voting for my opponent later.

    Good luck! I often wonder if those who have actually stood for elected office have a greater respect for democracy than those who have yet to. This is something that is completely beyond your control and your future is in the electorate's hands - until you've tried it, there is nothing else like it!

    Nice website:

    http://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates/governance/office-bearers
    I stood as a local Councillor many years ago for the SDP but that was on the strict understanding I would not win since I didn't have time to do it. I really didn't need to worry. Hopefully this one will be closer.
    Are you standing against the incumbent or is it a 'one term' office?
    It's a one term office and its rather up to you how long that term is once elected. Most of the office bearers do 3 or 4 years in their post unless they get elected to a higher post if a vacancy arises there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 29,967
    Scott_P said:
    Remind me again, how many seats did Tony Blair win whilst being a loser?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 12,911

    Scott_P said:
    Remind me again, how many seats did Tony Blair win whilst being a loser?
    Pretty much all of them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,646
    Cyclefree said:

    This may be controversial but hear me out.

    Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?

    The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.

    The leader cannot be someone who is in the Lords. So why should they be someone who is not even an MP? How can such a person possibly hold the government to account?

    Party members tend to be more committed than normal voters. That may be great from the perspective of getting people to deliver leaflets but is a problem, IMO, precisely because - being so committed - they are unlike normal voters. Having MPs and leaders beholden to party members seems to me to risk them becoming narrower rather than more open in their outlook. See the current Tory party obsessing about having a replacement Leaver leader the party members will like as if the rest of us don’t count. Ditto Labour.

    MPs have the estimable advantage of being elected by voters, most of whom are not party members. That ought to give them a better chance of connecting with what most voters are actually interested in than if they only listen to party members. Of course, that may not work in safe seats where they weigh the votes but that raises the issue of electoral reform.

    It may be an old-fashioned view - and I expect to be shot down in flames - but if Parliament is to matter and if we really want MPs to listen to voters then I think we should be moving away from the current fad of making party members the be-all and end-all. It is narrowing the concerns of parties and making them self-righteous, with all the nastiness and intolerance which goes with that.

    I think that parties are having increasing problems in attracting membership. Their role in policy making in most parties is pretty much non existent, only the Lib Dems seem to pay more than token respect to Conference votes. If members don't get their vote for leader what exactly do they get out of membership?

    The Corbyn situation has shown the fundamental problems that can arise with a PLP having expressed no confidence in him and most of the more talented members not willing to serve in his shadow cabinet. I can't think of another example though. IDS was a buffoon but he did not split his Parliamentary party the way Corbyn has. I think the Conservative party process where the 2 to go to the membership (both of whom will have substantial support in the Parliamentary party) is a reasonable compromise.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 10,973

    Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.

    Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/06/ireland-hopes-side-deal-with-eu-could-allow-it-friction-free-trade-across-border

    Sounds like 'cakeism' to me. What if the UK wants to check them?

    This was discussed last night and I'm not sure people got the implications. It is not for the EU to guarantee free passage via Dover and Holyhead, it's for us. That's our territory.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,070

    Cyclefree said:

    This may be controversial but hear me out.

    Why should party members get a vote on the party leadership in a Parliamentary democracy?

    The PM is the person who commands a majority in Parliament, in the Commons. So they need to have the backing of their MPs and the confidence of a majority of them. It’s a nonsense to have as leader, let alone as PM, someone who does not have the confidence of their MPs.

    Because to have to sell the benefits of membership to the members to get cash in, and having influence is a major selling point.

    Remember the Tories used to have MP only votes. Wasn't that until IDS??
    Selling influence is not, IMO, a good enough reason and leads to problems which we are seeing in both main parties today. Members can be involved in discussing policy, in selling the message, in bringing ideas forward etc. But ultimately Parliament is the forum for governing and leaders have to have the confidence of their MPs if our Parliamentary democracy is to work effectively.

    I just question the idea that widening party membership is the answer. MPs need to listen to voters not just to party members. Those of us who are not party members are being ignored - and, bluntly, we are the majority. Rather than it being widened - in terms of perspectives - it seems to me to be narrowed and in a way which is bad for the parties and bad for our governance.
  • Ireland is hoping to seal a special Brexit side deal in Brussels allowing it to continue using the UK as a “land bridge” for goods in transit to Dublin without border checks, a senior Irish tax official has revealed.

    Under the special deal being discussed, goods from the continent would undergo checks in Calais. The freight containers would then be sealed and given free passage to Dublin via Dover and Holyhead.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/06/ireland-hopes-side-deal-with-eu-could-allow-it-friction-free-trade-across-border

    Sounds like 'cakeism' to me. What if the UK wants to check them?

    Isn't this just how TIR used to operate?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,070
    edited September 2018
    Potentially, it might amount to obstruction of justice. But wasn't this the same MO in the rape allegation? The party tried to deal with the matter privately rather than report it to the police for proper investigation.
  • Miss Cyclefree, the problem with that approach is that people generally aren't into politics. Activists of other parties are, so they could simply try to bugger up another party's leadership election.
This discussion has been closed.