Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Apart from the Chequers wobble Leave voters broadly staying wi

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Apart from the Chequers wobble Leave voters broadly staying with the Tories and Mrs May

As we approach what could be a very critical time in British politics with a possible Brexit deal only weeks away James Bowley has shared with me the above charts based on looking at the detailed data of all the published YouGov voting intention polls since the last general election.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355
    Oooh, am I first?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,779
    Cyclefree said:

    Oooh, am I first?

    You are!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,355

    Cyclefree said:

    Oooh, am I first?

    You are!
    Yay!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 15,074
    edited November 1

    Cyclefree said:

    Oooh, am I first?

    You are!
    Fourth, like the "Brexit" excuse by JLR.
  • Was expecting a thread on Tracey Crouch's next step towards becoming Tory leader....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,779
    Hands up those who have been saying for some time that TMay will lead the Tories into the next GE!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,779
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Oooh, am I first?

    You are!
    Fourth, like the "Brexit" excuse by JLR.
    Third, shirley... only one entry allowed per poster!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 15,074

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Oooh, am I first?

    You are!
    Fourth, like the "Brexit" excuse by JLR.
    Third, shirley... only one entry allowed per poster!
    Good point. I was going post-wise.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,779
    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    Maths question here on the US midterms:

    So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.

    Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?

    I make it a 72.25% chance.
    That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
    Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.

    Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
    It is a difficult calculation...

    I should have the answer for you by next Wednesday (I can tell you now it will either be 0% or 100%).
  • Was expecting a thread on Tracey Crouch's next step towards becoming Tory leader....

    I expect Poch will quit before Crouch.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791

    Was expecting a thread on Tracey Crouch's next step towards becoming Tory leader....

    I expect Poch will quit before Crouch.
    Or "Pouch" for short :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791
    Michael Portillo has a famous motto:

    "Who Dares Wins."

    WE dare!

    WE will WIN!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756
    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246
    Nevada is starting to look better for the Dems. Possibly the GOP "all rural all the time" Nevada strategy might be backfiring as Washoe (Bellweather county in Presidential elections) early voting is becoming more and more Democratic registered.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,434
    edited November 1
    Cyclefree said:

    JonathanD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yup. The government should have pushed for mutual recognition. This government is so useless it can’t even play well a reasonably good hand. Battling for Britain, my arse.....
    Or perhaps they did push hard and we just don't have a very good hand?
    You may be right.

    It's not a very good hand but it's a better hand than people think because the reality is that the City is an asset to the whole of the EU and panic in the financial markets if there is uncertainty or a lack of continuity in contracts etc will affect more than just the UK. But I doubt if there is anyone in government, other than possibly Hammond, who understands the City and who has been arguing for a sensible deal on it. I certainly don't think May or Raab or any of those involved have a real understanding of how it works, its importance, the consequences and don't think they have bothered to expend whatever political capital they have on it. Which is a pity for all of us given its current importance to Britain's economy.
    The situation before was that the UK PRA would set regulatory standards for financial services and other members' PRAs would fall into line. There was a convenience to them of being standardized and the UK got the benefit of setting the agenda. Since the referendum everyone has ignored the UK PRA, so there's currently a vacuum. Eventually it will be filled by the ECB plus French and/or German national standard setting. The important point is who sets the standards, not whether there's mutual recognition. I'm guessing we will fall in line with the EU standards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    Alistair said:

    Nevada is starting to look better for the Dems. Possibly the GOP "all rural all the time" Nevada strategy might be backfiring as Washoe (Bellweather county in Presidential elections) early voting is becoming more and more Democratic registered.

    Are you saying that rural voters in Nevada are deserting the Republicans?

    Don't throw my coat at me, I don't need it in a desert...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Nevada is starting to look better for the Dems. Possibly the GOP "all rural all the time" Nevada strategy might be backfiring as Washoe (Bellweather county in Presidential elections) early voting is becoming more and more Democratic registered.

    Are you saying that rural voters in Nevada are deserting the Republicans?

    Don't throw my coat at me, I don't need it in a desert...
    Is that what's known as dry humour ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Nevada is starting to look better for the Dems. Possibly the GOP "all rural all the time" Nevada strategy might be backfiring as Washoe (Bellweather county in Presidential elections) early voting is becoming more and more Democratic registered.

    Are you saying that rural voters in Nevada are deserting the Republicans?

    Don't throw my coat at me, I don't need it in a desert...
    Is that what's known as dry humour ?
    That was more of a dusty answer...
  • DavidL said:

    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.

    FEW....... there's quite a lot of us, just not as headbanger about it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    So - no referral for Vote Leave, Cummings, etc?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756
    Pulpstar said:
    That is bizarre. If anything the BoE has been slightly more optimistic than the OBR in their projections which were announced on Monday.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    edited November 1
    Scott_P said:
    The last time the electoral commission accused Leavers of criminal activities didn't go down so well, did it? :p
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 69,764
    edited November 1
    I really need to re-watch The Untouchables today.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    DavidL said:

    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.

    There's a lot for folk to find distasteful.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,733
    Interesting. We all know that when the deal is finally announced the dogs of hell will tear into Theresa. I'm referring to Farage, Banks, Boris, Mogg and DD. The crucial question is: have they discredited themselves enough in recent times for the public to remain unmoved and Theresa to survive the onslaught? We'll soon find out.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    Scott_P said:
    Don't expect any prosecutions, if any, for five years.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284

    Interesting. We all know that when the deal is finally announced the dogs of hell will tear into Theresa. I'm referring to Farage, Banks, Boris, Mogg and DD. The crucial question is: have they discredited themselves enough in recent times for the public to remain unmoved and Theresa to survive the onslaught? We'll soon find out.

    They'll moan, but May's deal will be the only game in town.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,173
    I wonder at what point Aaron Banks will flee to Moscow...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. Alistair, bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram. One with a bell around its neck guides the other sheep.

    Interesting breaking news.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    JonathanD said:

    I wonder at what point Aaron Banks will flee to Moscow...
    Or the Isle of Man.
  • Alas, the NCA are civil servants, rather than coppers. They don't move terribly fast. We'll be out before there's any chance of pinning Brexit on Putin and reconsidering our options accordingly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418
    If only the EC had given Banks the designation. :D
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    Maths question here on the US midterms:

    So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.

    Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?

    I make it a 72.25% chance.
    That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
    Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.

    Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
    It is a difficult calculation...

    I should have the answer for you by next Wednesday (I can tell you now it will either be 0% or 100%).
    I messed up, it's 70% if you assume that there's a near 0% chance of the Dems taking the Senate and the GOP keeping the House, not 72.25.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756

    DavidL said:

    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.

    FEW....... there's quite a lot of us, just not as headbanger about it.
    Fair enough. My point is that however many Tory remainers there are they are prioritising beating Corbyn over a government policy that they disagree with.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756

    DavidL said:

    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.

    There's a lot for folk to find distasteful.
    Sad but true.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,415
    edited November 1

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    Maths question here on the US midterms:

    So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.

    Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?

    I make it a 72.25% chance.
    That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
    Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.

    Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
    It is a difficult calculation...

    I should have the answer for you by next Wednesday (I can tell you now it will either be 0% or 100%).
    I messed up, it's 70% if you assume that there's a near 0% chance of the Dems taking the Senate and the GOP keeping the House, not 72.25.
    It's near 100% if you assume that there's a near 0% chance of the Dems taking the Senate and the GOP keeping the House.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575
    Barnesian said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    Maths question here on the US midterms:

    So 538 make it an 85% chance that the Dems win the House and an 85% chance the GOP holds the senate.

    Is the probability that both of these events happen also 85% in that case? Is the correct answer something to do with compounded probability?

    I make it a 72.25% chance.
    That would be right if the two probabilities were entirely independent of each other, but there's probably a degree of correlation between the two results, which would make it a bit higher than that.
    Split ticketing is the enemy calculating this.

    Plus the whole House is up for re-election whilst not every Senate seat is up for election, just a third, So some voters/states will be voting for the House but not the Senate.
    It is a difficult calculation...

    I should have the answer for you by next Wednesday (I can tell you now it will either be 0% or 100%).
    I messed up, it's 70% if you assume that there's a near 0% chance of the Dems taking the Senate and the GOP keeping the House, not 72.25.
    It's near 100% if you assume that there's a near 0% chance of the Dems taking the Senate and the GOP keeping the House.
    That was a software developer's "and".
  • ExiledInScotlandExiledInScotland Posts: 468
    edited November 1
    BBC: The National Crime Agency is investigating Arron Banks and his Leave.EU campaign for alleged offences committed at the 2016 EU referendum.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

    Edit: of course you were all ahead of me downthread
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    May lost a few voters to UKIP but the Tory vote is otherwise broadly stable but Corbyn has failed to make any real gains since GE17 and has even lost a few voters to the LDs
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,756

    Scott_P said:
    Don't expect any prosecutions, if any, for five years.

    Aaron Banks has never struck me as the sharpest tool in the box but I would be very surprised if his Isle of Man company did not lend the money to himself so that he could then lend it to others. Provided he has the paperwork to establish that chain I really don't think where he got the money to lend is likely to be here or there. That would only be the case if he was a man of straw or nominee making it a paper transaction and I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously suggest that.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575
    Is there any significance to us having had two positive-sounding stories about reaching a Brexit deal which then immediately had to be U-turned, in as many days?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    The Guardian has closed comments on its live blog, because of the risk of people posting libellous remarks. We should be careful here.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    The Guardian has closed comments on its live blog, because of the risk of people posting libellous remarks. We should be careful here.

    No problem.
    I have literally no opinion of Aaron Banks whatsoever.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Corbyn's fall amongst Labour supporters is very marked but the impact to date on Labour's polling seems slight. They have lost maybe 2-3% over the period covered in the chart which isn't much.

    What the chart shows is that those who are now disillusioned are not going to May. Her figure has barely moved. That, together with the polling, suggests to me that many of those despairing of Corbyn and his lies (Alastair's link to that Labour Uncut article on the previous thread is well worth a look) may well still vote Labour to stop the Tories. Of course a similar mind set is found on the Tory side amongst both the few Tory remainers and the more febrile of the Leavers. For both the priority is to ensure that Corbyn does not become PM.

    And so the paralysis of UK politics based on distaste of the other continues.

    FEW....... there's quite a lot of us, just not as headbanger about it.
    Fair enough. My point is that however many Tory remainers there are they are prioritising beating Corbyn over a government policy that they disagree with.
    Agreed - and it's because it's not an issue I'm that obsessed about ...
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246

    Mr. Alistair, bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram. One with a bell around its neck guides the other sheep.

    Interesting breaking news.

    I. Blame. Autocorrect.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    edited November 1

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    Here's the 'best' comment..

    Another complained that he was having to use a gym a couple of miles away in Canary Wharf.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    Ha! I can imagine better ways of spending the housing benefit budget than giving them access to fancy pools and gyms.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 1,575

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    But why not let people opt in?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    I find the critisicsm bizarre, it smacks of entitlement - does every Londoner need access to a private pool and gym ?!
    If they want it they can pay market rent !
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    I find the critisicsm bizarre, it smacks of entitlement - does every Londoner need access to a private pool and gym ?!
    If they want it they can pay market rent !
    Perhaps they want the taxpayers to fork out even more for them?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    I find the critisicsm bizarre, it smacks of entitlement - does every Londoner need access to a private pool and gym ?!
    If they want it they can pay market rent !
    Perhaps they want the taxpayers to fork out even more for them?
    Apartheid according to the twitterati.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited November 1
    Jeezo, he just can't let Soros go, can he?


    I hope that 'the other bad boys are just as bad' isn't going to form his actual defence.

    Edit: actually, I hope it is.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,173
    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    Surely its better to have rich and poor living in the same building - even if only those who pay for the gym can use the gym than have the poor shunted to the outskirts of London?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,705
    "We give £350 million a week to the EU. Let's give it to the National Crime Agency instead"
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,705
    I imagine Jon McDonnell is looking at the third graph above and preparing to install telephone lines (or whatever the 21st century equivalent is).
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,328

    Scott_P said:
    Don't expect any prosecutions, if any, for five years.

    Ten years after the financial crisis we are still waiting for meaningful prosecution of major figures in the banking and financial sector - and they cost the nation hundreds of billions. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan et all were big backers of remain.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695

    I imagine Jon McDonnell is looking at the third graph above and preparing to install telephone lines (or whatever the 21st century equivalent is).

    Registering McDonnell4Leader.org
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 15,074
    JonathanD said:

    Surely its better to have rich and poor living in the same building - even if only those who pay for the gym can use the gym than have the poor shunted to the outskirts of London?

    I'd chuck in use of the gym. The "full fat" tenants are already living with people who are getting equivalent accommodation for a much reduced rate so what marginal difference does 30mins on a running machine make?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,705
    JonathanD said:

    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    Surely its better to have rich and poor living in the same building - even if only those who pay for the gym can use the gym than have the poor shunted to the outskirts of London?
    Rich and poor traditionally lived in the same building. And I'm sure the servants didn't get to use the swimming pool then, either.
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,050

    "We give £350 million a week to the EU. Let's give it to the National Crime Agency instead"

    You just know that its a token investigation to appease the likes of Cadwalladr. When there is no case to answer I wonder what route she'll take next to try and overturn the referendum. Not that the government will give a monkeys about Banks, I'd imagine they'll be delighted to halt his attempts to split the Tories.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    Well Toad of Toad Hall Banks did say he was the "Bad boy of Brexit !"
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767
    JonathanD said:

    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    Surely its better to have rich and poor living in the same building - even if only those who pay for the gym can use the gym than have the poor shunted to the outskirts of London?
    "the landlord, L&Q, a housing charity, has said its tenants will not have access to the facility and Ballymore, the developer, said they will not be able to buy individual memberships."

    So they're not actually allowed to buy access to the gym/pool which seems both a poor business decision and liable to make them feel a bit second class.

    Fantastic story from the Guardian to get people riled up, it's got the perfect mix of housing woe, class struggle and anger at entitlement. Surprised it isn't #1.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,664
    edited November 1
    EDIT perhaps not.
  • Much like Trump and Owen Jones, a quick search of his TL always yields a tweet for any occasion.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767
    As an aside on that housing story - you are eligible if you are renting and you have a household income of less than 60k according to the guardian article.

    How mental is our housing system!?
    Over double the median income and you're eligible for below market rents.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418
    rkrkrk said:

    As an aside on that housing story - you are eligible if you are renting and you have a household income of less than 60k according to the guardian article.

    How mental is our housing system!?
    Over double the median income and you're eligible for below market rents.

    And it's probably overpriced even with the state subsidy. I'll stick to commuting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845

    EDIT perhaps not.

    And with the simple sword of truth ;)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,328
    JonathanD said:

    Anazina said:

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    It’s not a great idea having an integrated affordable housing policy then having two grades of occupier - the whole point of the policy is that London doesn’t become a wealthy ghetto.
    Surely its better to have rich and poor living in the same building - even if only those who pay for the gym can use the gym than have the poor shunted to the outskirts of London?
    The middle classes got shunted to the outskirts of London years ago - and beyond. Not sure why the poor have any more right to live there either - indeed only the very rich, the poor in social housing and those who bought decades ago can afford to live in central London anymore.

    London has excelent public transport and loads of council and private gyms and swimming pools. The poor have more options there than most places in the UK if they want a swim.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,737
    Brom said:

    "We give £350 million a week to the EU. Let's give it to the National Crime Agency instead"

    You just know that its a token investigation to appease the likes of Cadwalladr. When there is no case to answer I wonder what route she'll take next to try and overturn the referendum. Not that the government will give a monkeys about Banks, I'd imagine they'll be delighted to halt his attempts to split the Tories.
    Source or is this just wishful thinking? How do you know there is no case to answer?
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 635
    BA219 LHR to Denver in tight holding pattern overhead here (N York’s Cumbria border) at 19,000ft... never seen that before... any ideas?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284
    Rexel56 said:

    BA219 LHR to Denver in tight holding pattern overhead here (N York’s Cumbria border) at 19,000ft... never seen that before... any ideas?

    Medical emergency?
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,050

    Brom said:

    "We give £350 million a week to the EU. Let's give it to the National Crime Agency instead"

    You just know that its a token investigation to appease the likes of Cadwalladr. When there is no case to answer I wonder what route she'll take next to try and overturn the referendum. Not that the government will give a monkeys about Banks, I'd imagine they'll be delighted to halt his attempts to split the Tories.
    Source or is this just wishful thinking? How do you know there is no case to answer?
    The fact he's been welcoming a investigation for some time is rather revealing. But if you're playing the percentages and look at investigations into financial irregularities most end up without any action taken or small slaps on the wrists. I suspect Craig Mackinlay will end up OK too, though obviously that's not one to go into detail on at the moment.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,664
    Arron Banks's spectacular whataboutery involving George Soros shows (a) that he is a deeply odious berk and (b) that he is concerned this is going somewhere so he is laying an irrelevant and false trail.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,833
    Re the brain drain.

    It will be a little known fact that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.

    I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small UK hot shop have pulled out. The reason given were worries the UK might lose some of its pan European business.

    In 1982 when Colin Welland picked up the Oscar for 'Chariots of Fire' he famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming!". Well they came and thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,106

    In more amusing news, the most-read story (until the Arron Banks news broke) on the Guardian website is their shocking revelation that people who don't pay towards a private gym and pool are not allowed to use it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/01/subsidised-tenants-are-excluded-from-pool-and-gym-in-london-tower

    Brexit...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    edited November 1

    Arron Banks's spectacular whataboutery involving George Soros shows (a) that he is a deeply odious berk and (b) that he is concerned this is going somewhere so he is laying an irrelevant and false trail.

    Especially since it is so obviously garbage, because donations outside the campaign periods aren't restricted.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    Roger said:

    Re the brain drain.

    It will be a little known fact that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.

    I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small UK hot shop have pulled out. The reason given were worries the UK might lose some of its pan European business.

    In 1982 when Colin Welland picked up the Oscar for 'Chariots of Fire' he famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming!". Well they came and thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.

    Whilst that might be true (or not), at least we're still a bastion of stability compared to the country run by your friend Assad ...
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 860
    Roger said:

    Re the brain drain.

    It will be a little known fact that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.

    I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small UK hot shop have pulled out. The reason given were worries the UK might lose some of its pan European business.

    In 1982 when Colin Welland picked up the Oscar for 'Chariots of Fire' he famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming!". Well they came and thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.

    Those people in Hartlepool who actually live in this county must be crying themselves to sleep at problems for jet setting ad execs! This is almost as laughable as the People’s vote moaning about museum collections yesterday. If I had not seen you post here for years I would think you were a parody.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    Roger said:

    Re the brain drain.

    It will be a little known fact that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.

    I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small UK hot shop have pulled out. The reason given were worries the UK might lose some of its pan European business.

    In 1982 when Colin Welland picked up the Oscar for 'Chariots of Fire' he famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming!". Well they came and thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.

    What is a "hot shop" ?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,164
    Rexel56 said:

    BA219 LHR to Denver in tight holding pattern overhead here (N York’s Cumbria border) at 19,000ft... never seen that before... any ideas?

    Tech fault which is severe enough that they need to land, but not severe enough they need to do so RIGHT NOW. Burning off fuel to the landing limit. Landing heavy means checks, checks, checks, and a risk of structural damage. They'll have a jettison system but it's more environmentally friendly to burn it off going round in circles

    Or maybe they are just lost.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,284

    Roger said:

    Re the brain drain.

    It will be a little known fact that in advertising and allied services the UK punches well above its weight. Such is the reputation of the industry that it 's fair to say the sun never sets where British technicians and creatives aren't working. I myself have shot for for over 30 countries. Reputations count for a lot and hailing from the the first 'go to' country when a client is looking to shoot an ad is a huge advantage.

    I heard this week that a large Japanese agency who were about to buy a small UK hot shop have pulled out. The reason given were worries the UK might lose some of its pan European business.

    In 1982 when Colin Welland picked up the Oscar for 'Chariots of Fire' he famously (and presciently)) said "The British are Coming!". Well they came and thanks to the morons in Hartlepool it looks like they're now going.

    Those people in Hartlepool who actually live in this county must be crying themselves to sleep at problems for jet setting ad execs! This is almost as laughable as the People’s vote moaning about museum collections yesterday. If I had not seen you post here for years I would think you were a parody.
    The plebs will realise their mistake when said execs are forced to spend all of their time in the UK. :p
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 854
    RobD said:


    Medical emergency?

    They'd have landed rather than circling surely? I'd have thought some technical problem.

    Looks like they're heading back to London or possibly Manchester.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223
    edited November 1
    RobD said:

    Rexel56 said:

    BA219 LHR to Denver in tight holding pattern overhead here (N York’s Cumbria border) at 19,000ft... never seen that before... any ideas?

    Medical emergency?
    I would have thought for that it would fly over the sea to dump fuel before diverting to the nearest airport. This looks more like burning off fuel before returning to LHR, almost certainly for a technical issue.

    Edit FR24 now shows it having left its holding pattern and heading back south.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,411
    Afternoon all :)

    A busy news day and Carney's press conference particularly noteworthy.

    As for Tracey Crouch, her long-standing support for lowering FOBT limits to £2 has always been resisted by the pro-bookmaker lobby within the Conservative Party and Crouch must feel Hammond was "nobbled" (to use an equine term) in the run-up to the Budget to postpone further the implementation of the FOBT reduction.

    The bookmakers have played their own "Project Fear" (doesn't everyone these days?) claiming there will be hundreds of shop closures and thousands of job losses. Perhaps for the former but the capacity of the economy to generate jobs at present suggests the employment situation might not be too drastic and there may be those looking out at High Streets with a dozen or more betting shops who might argue three or four less would be no bad thing.

    Anecdotally, the former Poundworld in East Ham High Street which closed in early August is to become a Bargain Buys opening probably in the next fortnight. The demise of High Street retail at the lower end is exaggerated.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223
    Andrew said:

    RobD said:


    Medical emergency?

    They'd have landed rather than circling surely? I'd have thought some technical problem.

    Looks like they're heading back to London or possibly Manchester.
    A fully-laden and fueled 744 is too heavy to land safely so it has to dispose of some of its fuel to divert or return in one way or another.
This discussion has been closed.