Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Foxes and Hedgehogs – a tale of tactics without strategy

13

Comments

  • Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
  • Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    The whole election feels like Dunny-on-the-Wold. Colin for PM!!!!!!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540

    Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
  • kle4 said:

    Stocky said:

    SirNorfolkPassmore said:

    "So who are we now wearing poppies for? ..... But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling."

    Yes - spot on - it`s the tyrranny of the virtue-signalling majority. I said as much on this forum a few days ago and got shot down for it. Excuse the pun (I suppose I`ll get in trouble for that too).

    It is virtue signalling, but the bemoaning of the tyranny of it that is self pitying 'woe is me' virtue signalling in response as well. As was noted at the time the exact same thing happens every year and while no one should feel obliged to wear one, and yet in media/politics at the least would be criticised for not doing so, when people talk about tyranny and oppression, it fails to convince in its hyperbole.
    To some extent, the feeling is that if a 94 year old WW2 veteran said to me on 11th November "why aren't you wearing a poppy?" I'd be genuinely sorry I'd not put it on and apologise profusely. I'd maybe also think it was a bit of an over-reaction but would remind myself of what they went through and the friends they'd lost, and think I was probably the one being a d1ck. But it'd also be really bad luck to be in that situation - the number of WW2 veterans now is vanishingly small.

    But if a smug 40 something said it, I'd think "Who the hell are you, you smug bastard? You didn't know any of the people on that memorial either, and how dare you claim the moral high ground just because I made a minor error of etiquette?"
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,510

    geoffw said:

    Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.

    Isn't an election precisely the time we should be debating the issues facing the country? After all, the winner will claim an electoral mandate for whatever it is they say they want to do, so the least we can do is try to understand it beforehand. Otherwise, why do we even have democracy?
    I would hope so, but the presumption of all the opposition players is that the WA itself is up for debate in this election.
  • Foxy said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

    I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
    I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.

    I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
    I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.

    Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.

    But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.

    Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.

    So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
    I had always thought that wearing a poppy was not so much respect for those who had survived the wars, but for those who hadn't. It's always been bound up in my understanding with the phrase "never again", not to throw away young men's lives for no good reason.

    And this is why I think Iraq War II broke the poppy in the way that I understood it. Because we did throw away young men's lives on a lie, and despite opposition to that lie. And so it felt to me that there was a concerted effort to cast soldiers as heroes to make up for the fact that they'd died for a lie. And when there's a lie at the heart of it all then you can't brook any dissent, and so the exaggerated displays and all the rest.

    We've tried to cast Blair as our scapegoat for this mess, but frustratingly he's doing very well for himself, which is not how a scapegoat is supposed to be.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:
    Yes the main takeaway from that is how terrible it would be for someone to say they would celebrate the death of Blair and Netanyahu...
    I expect that you would celebrate their deaths, but you aren't the average voter.
    Look I'm on your side against the pesky minorities whining about their problems here, I mean what does chasing minorities out of public life or telling them to go home really compare with someone saying they would celebrate the deaths of 2 people widely seen as bad and responsible for the deaths of others.


  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,275
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    There io
    Temped
    You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.

    None of which means No Deal.

    The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.

    No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
    No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the transition period without any FTA (or agreements covering any of the other areas listed in the Political Declaration) means turning into a third country overnight. The effect is exactly the same as us leaving on 31/1/2020 without a Withdrawal Agreement.

    It means we have No Deal about what our future relationship with EU across a wide range of matters will be.

    All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.

    An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    Similar calculations were done when remainers assured us that Theresa May's WA would never be renegotiated, because there was not enough time.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,100


    Good post. I agree with this.

    It's a different kind of virtue signal at times and I speak as someone who always wears one in the first few days of November. Often the paper ones fall off so you have to buy several and in-between you risk being jumped on as disrespectful.

    I see poppy flags and poppies on cars now, with sullen looks occasionally at those without one.

    You never used to get that.

    I don't wear a poppy but do donate to the BL.

    If you want to wear one, wear one.

    If you don't, don't - and don't take any cr*p from anyone who tells you you should.

    Served for 15 years in the forces, proud of my country and believe we owe it to the fallen to acknowledge their sacrifice...just do it in your own way.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,698
    I don't want to sound shallow but it's time JS got herself a stylist. She's entitled to her own taste but dressing like an early version of Thatcher isn't a smart thing to do. If you dress like a deputy headmistress that's how people will see you.
  • geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.

    Isn't an election precisely the time we should be debating the issues facing the country? After all, the winner will claim an electoral mandate for whatever it is they say they want to do, so the least we can do is try to understand it beforehand. Otherwise, why do we even have democracy?
    I would hope so, but the presumption of all the opposition players is that the WA itself is up for debate in this election.
    Why not? It's not been passed into law yet because Johnson wanted an election first. The government's claim that we will leave the transition at the end of next year despite no independent expert believing an FTA can be negotiated by then is certainly worthy of scrutiny. Either they're lying, or they want to crash the economy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
    Imagine if we have another hung Parliament on December 13th......!

    We may as well just ask Donald Tusk to be our new overlord. He will need a new job by then, seems to like us and is certainly more competent than any of our lot.

    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    Cyclefree said:
    Charles point earlier was about the Muslim community not fearing the outcome of the upcoming election. Also if you note what I said about one community concerns getting a whole article can pretty much only be a reference to very recent articles as we have one far more than 'a whole article' on the subject.

    Also quite frankly Aleesha tweets were far from limited to the Conservative party, it is the whole* press that is rotten not just the Conservative party.

    *Maybe a little overstatement..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,226
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:



    And when has there ever been 100% agreement on what the best regulatory, legislative and economic conditions should be?

    Once again you conflate the issue of majority consent for something with the obligation on Government to do what I can for all people irrespective of whether they voted for it.

    Are you suggesting a Conservative Government should only enact policies which directly benefit its supporters and completely ignore those who voted for other parties? Should only those areas which voted in Conservative MPs get public money and areas like Newham should be neglected because they don't vote Conservative?

    That's just like some dimwit every elected person should be a Conservative - that's what happens in places like North Korea - it's strange to hear someone in a democracy argue for totalitarianism.

    No but by definition a Conservative government will pursue policies Labour voters don't like, Labour governments will pursue policies Conservative voters don't like and a LD government will pursue policies both Labour and Tory voters dislike. That is the nature of democracy
    This is clearly some new meaning of the word "definition" that I was previously unaware of.

    I must admit, I struggle to debate with you, because some words mean different things to you than to - well - everybody else.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    io


    All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.

    An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    Similar calculations were done when remainers assured us that Theresa May's WA would never be renegotiated, because there was not enough time.
    Since 80% has remained the same (according to the A-G’s assessmen), what’s changed has reverted to what was originally on offer in December 2017 and the only significant change is to do something which Boris vowed he would never do, that wasn’t hard.

    But it’s hardly a renegotiation - more rooting around the wastepaper bin to fish out the previous drafts and an exhausted talk over a coffee just to get something, any bloody thing over the line.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
    Imagine if we have another hung Parliament on December 13th......!

    We may as well just ask Donald Tusk to be our new overlord. He will need a new job by then, seems to like us and is certainly more competent than any of our lot.

    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Why? What have you got against St Helena?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,510

    geoffw said:

    geoffw said:

    Thanks for a great header Cyclefree. But the last paragraph's call for a debate now on the post-WA deal is, I am afraid, not likely in the maelstrom of an election.

    Isn't an election precisely the time we should be debating the issues facing the country? After all, the winner will claim an electoral mandate for whatever it is they say they want to do, so the least we can do is try to understand it beforehand. Otherwise, why do we even have democracy?
    I would hope so, but the presumption of all the opposition players is that the WA itself is up for debate in this election.
    Why not? It's not been passed into law yet because Johnson wanted an election first. The government's claim that we will leave the transition at the end of next year despite no independent expert believing an FTA can be negotiated by then is certainly worthy of scrutiny. Either they're lying, or they want to crash the economy.
    We'll see in the next few weeks how much debate about the post-WA relationship with the EU takes place. The parties should set out their positions for the transition, but I can't see them getting past the Revoke/ 2nd Referendum arguments they are stuck on.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 12,698
    Floater said:
    Don't you think if you spent less of your time lapping up Guido and the Mail it might broaden your mind?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,275
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    io


    All the WA does is give us a transition period. At the end of it we crash out. You’d have to be a hell of an optimist to think that by 31/12/2020 we will have agreed an FTA and put in place all the other agreements necessary to avoid such a crash out.

    An October 2019 crash out has been avoided. A December 2020 one has not been. The Tories are completely unable to tell us what their negotiating priorities or aims are. Hell, their Immigration Minister couldn’t even answer a simple question this morning about whether the government would like to increase or reduce immigration.
    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    Similar calculations were done when remainers assured us that Theresa May's WA would never be renegotiated, because there was not enough time.
    Since 80% has remained the same (according to the A-G’s assessmen), what’s changed has reverted to what was originally on offer in December 2017 and the only significant change is to do something which Boris vowed he would never do, that wasn’t hard.

    But it’s hardly a renegotiation - more rooting around the wastepaper bin to fish out the previous drafts and an exhausted talk over a coffee just to get something, any bloody thing over the line.
    The type of deal is irrelevant. We were confidently told it was an impossibility.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    There io
    Temped
    You really have no ucliff edge in June to decide whether or mot we want to extend the transition.

    None of which means No Deal.

    The Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which enables FTA talks which will ultimately produce a FTA, even Canada got one with the EU after 7 years and we already have closer links with the EU than them.

    No Deal means no Withdrawal Agreement and no FTA talks with the EU until a Deal is agreed and pased
    No it doesn’t, however much you may like to define it in the way you would like it to be true. Leaving at the end of the trration.
    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.
    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    Similar calculations were done when remainers assured us that Theresa May's WA would never be renegotiated, because there was not enough time.
    Yes. WHile I actually agree with the view that there is not enough time practically to deal with many things that need dealing with, I was just plain wrong about the WA not being renegotiated (and that Boris even wanted to - and whether he thinks he can get no deal later and that's the plan may or may not be true, but plenty of people including me said he didn't want even this deal, so its shifting arguments to say he doesn't want one later, without acknowledging being wrong on this deal point) so am cautious in being so definitive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,226

    kle4 said:

    Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
    If
    I see six female of the species.

    I count seven.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023

    Cyclefree said:

    I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..


    Pretty much most of these points - including the need to have an inquiry - were made on this forum in March of this year, here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/08/what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour/

    The fact that Johnson has resiled on his promised inquiry is a disgrace and was criticised by me (and others) on here earlier today.
    Charles point earlier was about the Muslim community not fearing the outcome of the upcoming election. Also if you note what I said about one community concerns getting a whole article can pretty much only be a reference to very recent articles as we have one far more than 'a whole article' on the subject.

    Also quite frankly Aleesha tweets were far from limited to the Conservative party, it is the whole* press that is rotten not just the Conservative party.

    *Maybe a little overstatement..

    I don’t think there is any basis for limiting this to “recent articles”. Not sure why Aleesha claims to speak for the whole community.

    At any event the Tories are being foolish in not taking my advice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    edited November 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    io


    All ion.
    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is wharantee it.
    W
    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    Similar calculations were done when remainers assured us that Theresa May's WA would never be renegotiated, because there was not enough time.
    Since 80% has remained the same (according to the A-G’s assessmen), what’s changed has reverted to what was originally on offer in December 2017 and the only significant change is to do something which Boris vowed he would never do, that wasn’t hard.

    But it’s hardly a renegotiation - more rooting around the wastepaper bin to fish out the previous drafts and an exhausted talk over a coffee just to get something, any bloody thing over the line.
    I'm sorry, but while it being 80% being the same may be true LuckyGuy1983 is right that a lot of people, most perhaps, said nothing in the WA would be changed, only in the PD at best. I think it pretty unreasonable to poo poo that most people were wrong about that and Boris and co were right, even if one thinks that what they came back with as a change was terrible or even fairly trivial. Fact is so many people siad it would not happen, and I think it very strange that getting that wrong cannot be accepted without weaselling around about it.

    It's another of the Brexit issue areas where people refuse to concede and get creative in caveating their way around matters when I don't understand why that is necessary, like with advisory referendum and so on, things that can still be accepted without it really mattering much. Boris got changes when we were told he wouldn't, there's no need to weasel our way around that, because what he got may be awful, or not as great as he says, or not deal with things later down the line and so on.

    It just seems very petty. Very few people, in advance of the changes, were being careful enough to say 'Oh, it won't be a real negotiation if it just looks at some old ideas and changes 20% of things'. I certainly wasn't. How many were that careful?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    Artist said:
    I love phrases like 'faces growing pressure' in newspaper stories. From whom? How much?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
    Imagine if we have another hung Parliament on December 13th......!

    We may as well just ask Donald Tusk to be our new overlord. He will need a new job by then, seems to like us and is certainly more competent than any of our lot.

    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Why? What have you got against St Helena?
    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)
  • Cyclefree said:


    ...
    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Just send JRM to St Helena, or preferably the Antarctic Base. He could survey herring stocks for kipper production.

    As for Mark Francois, he is needed elsewhere...

    image

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    Back onto lighter subjects...



    Ohh Jeremy Corbyn, I can hear the crowd from here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    edited November 2019
    Roger said:

    Floater said:
    Don't you think if you spent less of your time lapping up Guido and the Mail it might broaden your mind?
    It probably would broaden the mind. I assume every one of us always digests a range of media, from left to right, mainstream and alternative, centrist to extremist?
  • Cyclefree said:

    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)

    You clearly have a Napoleon complex :D:D

    Interesting you used the phrase "You - the British...". Will you be following my example and putting a flag in your avatar?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Cyclefree - you are wasting your breath. None of the Leavers seem to believe anything other than a glorious paradise awaits.

    It is why I have resigned myself to No Deal Brexit - the Leavers detachment from practical politics, never mind reality, guarantee it.

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
    Imagine if we have another hung Parliament on December 13th......!

    I think it very likely. It's why abdicating their responsibilities as a parliament to make a choice based on the last GE was so terrible, and storing up so many problems - they did it because they felt it was too hard to make a choice, and it will only be harder after this GE unless there's a solid majority for something. That just leads to other issues of course, but if there's a hung parliament again there really will have been no point to this GE at all.
  • I’d be cautious of reading too much into subsamples re YouGov.

    This election continues to prove how the main three political parties are a complete joke.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    edited November 2019
    Cyclefree said:



    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)

    Well, one should only be mad about an ancestor being locked up if they did not deserve I would say :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180
    edited November 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Why? What have you got against St Helena?
    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)
    Really? I wouldn’t know about being British, speaking as a Welshman.

    Anyway, that’s hardly St Helena’s fault.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I don't usually put multiple tweets in a post but I thought this was a useful counter to Charles comments on a previous thread and seen as one community concerns got a whole article I figure I could give another at least a long post, especially considering the denial around them..


    Pretty much most of these points - including the need to have an inquiry - were made on this forum in March of this year, here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/08/what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour/

    The fact that Johnson has resiled on his promised inquiry is a disgrace and was criticised by me (and others) on here earlier today.
    Charles point earlier was about the Muslim community not fearing the outcome of the upcoming election. Also if you note what I said about one community concerns getting a whole article can pretty much only be a reference to very recent articles as we have one far more than 'a whole article' on the subject.

    Also quite frankly Aleesha tweets were far from limited to the Conservative party, it is the whole* press that is rotten not just the Conservative party.

    *Maybe a little overstatement..

    I don’t think there is any basis for limiting this to “recent articles”. Not sure why Aleesha claims to speak for the whole community.

    At any event the Tories are being foolish in not taking my advice.
    There might not be but if we assume that I am fully aware there have been multiple topics/articles on Labour anti semitism (I am, I've commented in a few) then the only other takeaway from my statement is I am talking only about recent articles. Also in fairness she doesn't claim to speak for the whole community, but there are plenty like her who say similar things.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    Saw that coming. No, 2017 won't be an exact replay of 2019 - things start from slightly different places for a start - but certain things, like youth vote, probably the welsh vote etc, have a good chance of having very similar patterns.
  • I don’t feel statements from people like Blunkett, Austin, or Woodcock are going to move many Labour voters. If someone like Brown or Darling came out and said something I think it would be different.
  • rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
    If
    I see six female of the species.

    I count seven.
    This is PedanticBettors.com - if you can see seven females then you must be able to see 7 sets of six females so picking any one of those sets satisfies the quote above.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540

    I’d be cautious of reading too much into subsamples re YouGov.

    This election continues to prove how the main three political parties are a complete joke.

    Only the main three? You are awfully generous!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180

    I don’t feel statements from people like Blunkett, Austin, or Woodcock are going to move many Labour voters. If someone like Brown or Darling came out and said something I think it would be different.

    Given his record if Gordon Brown were to come out and urge people to vote for Corbyn, we should pile on a Tory landslide,
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180
    edited November 2019

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
    If
    I see six female of the species.

    I count seven.
    This is PedanticBettors.com - if you can see seven females then you must be able to see 7 sets of six females so picking any one of those sets satisfies the quote above.
    I can only see six females. However, there’s also a massive tit in the middle of the picture and I’m wondering if this is skewing the count.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875

    Back onto lighter subjects...



    Ohh Jeremy Corbyn, I can hear the crowd from here.
    As long as any swing to Labour comes mostly from gullible kids, then that's all gravy as far as I'm concerned.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:


    io


    Since 80% has remained the same (according to the A-G’s assessmen), what’s changed has reverted to what was originally on offer in December 2017 and the only significant change is to do something which Boris vowed he would never do, that wasn’t hard.

    I'm sorry, but while it being 80% being the same may be true LuckyGuy1983 is right that a lot of people, most perhaps, said nothing in the WA would be changed, only in the PD at best. I think it pretty unreasonable to poo poo that most people were wrong about that and Boris and co were right, even if one thinks that what they came back with as a change was terrible or even fairly trivial. Fact is so many people siad it would not happen, and I think it very strange that getting that wrong cannot be accepted without weaselling around about it.

    It's another of the Brexit issue areas where people refuse to concede and get creative in caveating their way around matters when I don't understand why that is necessary, like with advisory referendum and so on, things that can still be accepted without it really mattering much. Boris got changes when we were told he wouldn't, there's no need to weasel our way around that, because what he got may be awful, or not as great as he says, or not deal with things later down the line and so on.

    It just seems very petty. Very few people, in advance of the changes, were being careful enough to say 'Oh, it won't be a real negotiation if it just looks at some old ideas and changes 20% of things'. I certainly wasn't. How many were that careful?
    Oh come on. He laid down some red lines then caved in. His spokesman said that what was originally presented was a take it or leave it offer. That didn’t last long.

    I pretty much predicted the deal he did get here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/12/a-very-english-vice/.

    Minus the Garden Bridge across the Irish Sea. Got that one wrong. Honestly, with all the money being spent I’m a bit miffed about that. Perhaps McDonnell will find space for it in his planned 150 squillion spending spree.
  • ydoethur said:

    I don’t feel statements from people like Blunkett, Austin, or Woodcock are going to move many Labour voters. If someone like Brown or Darling came out and said something I think it would be different.

    Given his record if Gordon Brown were to come out and urge people to vote for Corbyn, we should pile on a Tory landslide,
    I was thinking more along the lines of Brown coming out and speaking about the antisemitism crisis engulfing Labour.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Tim Stanley on Newsnight just quoted the YouGov regional poll in the North West as showing Labour down 15%. It was actually 25%.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,612
    edited November 2019

    Foxy said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

    I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
    I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.

    I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
    I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.

    Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.

    But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.

    Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.

    So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
    Excellent post. Nobody appreciates the endeavours of our Armed Forces more than I do, but I have never felt the desire to display that fact by wearing a poppy, and neither should anyone else if they do not wish to. Many individuals donate to charity, but do not wish to advertise the fact.

    Virtue signalling is one of the many unpleasant traits proliferating across the Western world, but it's all part of the wider insanity of identity politics. Our thoughts and our expressions are being narrowed more and more as every year goes by.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,176
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:

    Saw that coming. No, 2017 won't be an exact replay of 2019 - things start from slightly different places for a start - but certain things, like youth vote, probably the welsh vote etc, have a good chance of having very similar patterns.
    I think Carwyn Jones played an important role in turning the Welsh vote around in 2017. At the peak of his powers, he had the affability and black magic charm of a Welsh "Blair".

    I don't think Drakeford can pull off the same trick, and Carwyn's power has been broken by his handling of the Carl Sergeant affair.

    I think the Welsh Tory vote will fall back, but I think ~ 5 gains seem very likely.
  • kle4 said:

    I’d be cautious of reading too much into subsamples re YouGov.

    This election continues to prove how the main three political parties are a complete joke.

    Only the main three? You are awfully generous!
    Well, I focused on the main three as they are the ones who could realistically form the next government (although tbh, the SNP should be included as well thinking about it).

    No one really cares about UKIP etc. anymore.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023

    Cyclefree said:

    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)

    You clearly have a Napoleon complex :D:D

    Interesting you used the phrase "You - the British...". Will you be following my example and putting a flag in your avatar?
    No. Not a flag person at all.

    I did not want to make it look as if I was accusing @ydoethur personally.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Jason said:

    Foxy said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    OK, that makes sense. It's Remembrance Sunday after all.

    I don't see the point of people, particularly celebs on TV, wearing poppies three weeks before the event!
    I think only in the fortnight after the appeal is launched.

    I decided last year to only wear one Remembrance weekend and day, not before. 100 years is long enough. I think that a solemn event has transformed into un-British mawkishness and competitive display.
    I do worry about the outrage if someone is seen NOT wearing one.

    Partly, I think that's a wider problem of the gleeful "calling out" that is so common now.

    But it's also the case that, not so long ago there were quite a few folk who served in WW1 and WW2 about. When I was at primary school, say, quite a few WW2 veterans hadn't even retired. It was a visible indication, to people who'd served and who'd lost friends, that their sacrifice mattered to younger people. It was a matter of respect.

    Those days are slipping away very fast - you'd need to be into your 90s to have had any chance at all of having served in WW2 and the WW1 veterans have now all re-joined their fallen comrades.

    So who are we now wearing poppies for? Partly, it's a reminder to ourselves, and to make sure we don't forget in our hearts - which is good. Partly, it's increase we do stumble across a chap in his mid to late 90s - again, good. But to an increasing extent, it's virtue signalling. And if an MP or TV presenter neglects to do it, it doesn't actually mean they don't care - it probably means they are wearing a different jacket from yesterday.
    Excellent post. Nobody appreciates the endeavours of our Armed Forces more than I do, but I have never felt the desire to display that fact by wearing a poppy, and neither should anyone else if they do not wish to. Many individuals donate to charity, but do not wish to advertise the fact.

    Virtue signalling is one of the many unpleasant traits proliferating across the Western world, but it's all part of the wider insanity of identity politics. Our thoughts and our expressions are being narrowed more and more as every year goes by.
    In fairness, what other _visual_ signs of identity politics does the more conservative part of society enforce other than the poppy for a couple of weeks per year? I can't really think of any.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    Cyclefree said:



    Oh come on. He laid down some red lines then caved in. His spokesman said that what was originally presented was a take it or leave it offer. That didn’t last long.

    I pretty much predicted the deal he did get here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/12/a-very-english-vice/.

    Minus the Garden Bridge across the Irish Sea. Got that one wrong. Honestly, with all the money being spent I’m a bit miffed about that. Perhaps McDonnell will find space for it in his planned 150 squillion spending spree.

    You may have predicted it, but most people were far less nuanced and said he'd get nothing, they did not caveat that about whether he caved in or not. I think it reasonable for people to point that out. Again, Boris not really getting much, or standing tough like he claimed, doesn't really counter that a lot of people were just plain wrong about him even wanting to get a deal.

    He did, and he got one. End of. Many were just plain wrong about that.

    None of that makes his deal automatically good, or makes his posturing less silly, but I don't think criticisms of his deal, his actions, and the potential aftermath can be taken as seriously as they should unless the context is noted.

    It makes it far far too easy for continuing concerns to be dismissed as 'most people were wrong about him getting a deal at all so are wrong about those concerns' unless people either took the time beforehand to predict he'd climb down etc and do a deal, or acknowledge they got that part wrong, but that for reasons x and y things are still of great concern.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Why? What have you got against St Helena?
    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)
    Really? I wouldn’t know about being British, speaking as a Welshman.

    Anyway, that’s hardly St Helena’s fault.
    No. It isn’t. But JR-M is perfectly suited to sorting out table manners in the South Atlantic so St Helena will just have to put up with him.
  • eekeek Posts: 7,056

    Cyclefree said:


    ...
    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Just send JRM to St Helena, or preferably the Antarctic Base. He could survey herring stocks for kipper production.

    As for Mark Francois, he is needed elsewhere...

    image

    There is a certain amount of backdraft in that photo that isn't physically possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540

    kle4 said:

    Saw that coming. No, 2017 won't be an exact replay of 2019 - things start from slightly different places for a start - but certain things, like youth vote, probably the welsh vote etc, have a good chance of having very similar patterns.
    I think Carwyn Jones played an important role in turning the Welsh vote around in 2017. At the peak of his powers, he had the affability and black magic charm of a Welsh "Blair".

    I don't think Drakeford can pull off the same trick, and Carwyn's power has been broken by his handling of the Carl Sergeant affair.

    I think the Welsh Tory vote will fall back, but I think ~ 5 gains seem very likely.
    Oh, I don't think the similar patterns will necessarily all be equally as effective as last time. Wales, from the sounds of it, might not recover for Labour quite as well. But a movement back to Labour for the groups mentioned I think will happen, and combined with other factors like a LD revival, could sink the Tories even as Labour don't rise as much as before.
  • AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    No, let him have his way just as I should be free to spend my money elsewhere if I am unfortunate enough to wander into his pub.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    No, let him have his way just as I should be free to spend my money elsewhere if I am unfortunate enough to wander into his pub.
    I can't stand "call out culture". If there was a political party called the "anti-call out culture party" I'd definitely vote for it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,023
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)

    Well, one should only be mad about an ancestor being locked up if they did not deserve I would say :)

    That is most unfair. He was a hero to Neapolitans for inspiring them to free themselves from the oppressive and stupid Bourbons and the British - specifically Admiral Nelson - were seen as very bad indeed.

    The British like to think of themselves as the good guys. But it ain’t necessarily so. :)
  • ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
    If
    I see six female of the species.

    I count seven.
    This is PedanticBettors.com - if you can see seven females then you must be able to see 7 sets of six females so picking any one of those sets satisfies the quote above.
    I can only see six females. However, there’s also a massive tit in the middle of the picture and I’m wondering if this is skewing the count.
    I agree that there only appears to be six, but please do not attribute Dominic Raab to the female half of the population. We deserve better than that ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Yes, one photo means that. I suppose if someone puts up a photo of such a team where there is a woman you'll apologise?
    If
    I see six female of the species.

    I count seven.
    This is PedanticBettors.com - if you can see seven females then you must be able to see 7 sets of six females so picking any one of those sets satisfies the quote above.
    I can only see six females. However, there’s also a massive tit in the middle of the picture and I’m wondering if this is skewing the count.
    I agree that there only appears to be six, but please do not attribute Dominic Raab to the female half of the population. We deserve better than that ;)
    Well, I thought about several alternatives, beginning with c. One of them was masculine, but it then invalidated the point.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)

    Well, one should only be mad about an ancestor being locked up if they did not deserve I would say :)

    That is most unfair. He was a hero to Neapolitans for inspiring them to free themselves from the oppressive and stupid Bourbons and the British - specifically Admiral Nelson - were seen as very bad indeed.

    The British like to think of themselves as the good guys. But it ain’t necessarily so. :)
    Not a matter of good and bad - most people can count themselves lucky to just be locked up after losing a war!

    I only learned last year that Napoleon IV died fighting for the British in the Anglo-Zulu war. What an odd path life can take people.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180
    I see Diane Abbott has had yet another moment:

    General election 2019: 'Misleading' Abbott tweet used in Labour campaign
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50352176

    But then, the Corbyn project doesn’t care about fake news.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    kle4 said:

    Artist said:
    I love phrases like 'faces growing pressure' in newspaper stories. From whom? How much?
    Surprised that the Mail has a Lidl splash all over the front page. Has their readership demographic changed ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,108
    ydoethur said:

    I see Diane Abbott has had yet another moment:

    General election 2019: 'Misleading' Abbott tweet used in Labour campaign
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50352176

    But then, the Corbyn project doesn’t care about fake news.

    Fake news? In this day and age??
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,180
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    I see Diane Abbott has had yet another moment:

    General election 2019: 'Misleading' Abbott tweet used in Labour campaign
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/50352176

    But then, the Corbyn project doesn’t care about fake news.

    Fake news? In this day and age??
    It’s enough to make you skwawk.

    Good night.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,416
    https://mobile.twitter.com/toryman1979/status/1192659392681914373

    In stark contrast to Labour continuing FoM
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,163
    Roger said:

    Floater said:
    Don't you think if you spent less of your time lapping up Guido and the Mail it might broaden your mind?
    Poor old Roger - you have hitched yourself to an open sewer.

    You lie down with dogs Roger you will get fleas

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 739
    nunu2 said:
    If you want a European for a neighbour vote Labour ;)
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,304
    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,729

    I cannot believe that the choices for the country are that bumbling a*se Boris and Magic Grandpa and his Pogrom for govt.
    Just a hint: if you ever find yourself asking "is this the right moment for that hilarious pogrom pun", the answer is no.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,540
    nico67 said:

    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .

    It's a fine line to be walked, especially as the Tories may have gotten a few Remainers back after getting a deal at least. Crunch time for Farage next week.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,304
    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .

    It's a fine line to be walked, especially as the Tories may have gotten a few Remainers back after getting a deal at least. Crunch time for Farage next week.
    If I was the Tories I’d say no . And it’s not even clear the BP standing down would help them that much . Most of the current BP vote is more likely to be made up of Labour Leavers who couldn’t stomach voting Tory .
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2019
    it would be interesting to see regional polling from a company like Survation which has usually been giving Labour better ratings than the other firms.
  • Good post @Cyclefree
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited November 2019
    nico67 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .

    It's a fine line to be walked, especially as the Tories may have gotten a few Remainers back after getting a deal at least. Crunch time for Farage next week.
    If I was the Tories I’d say no . And it’s not even clear the BP standing down would help them that much . Most of the current BP vote is more likely to be made up of Labour Leavers who couldn’t stomach voting Tory .
    Wrong. Brexit Party voters comprise ~12% of those who voted Conservative in 2017 and ~8% of those who voted Labour in 2017. So it's around 60-40 Conservative-Labour.
    Source: YouGov fieldwork 5-6th November
  • I cannot believe that the choices for the country are that bumbling a*se Boris and Magic Grandpa and his Pogrom for govt.
    Just a hint: if you ever find yourself asking "is this the right moment for that hilarious pogrom pun", the answer is no.
    Well then, maybe if Mr Corbyn actually did something about antisemitism in his party I would not have the opportunity to use it. Does it mean nothing to you that Jews in this country are worried enough to contemplate fleeing aboard if Corbyn wins?
  • I suspect Boris & Dom's main objective all along was to create an election on their terms. They needed to get the opposition parties in such a frenzy, that they would agree to having an election without thinking about the position Boris had put them in.

    I reckon they didn't expect the surrender Benn Act or the Supreme Court ruling, but were agile enough within their overarching objective roadmap to deal with it.

    Of course this could all be bollocks if Boris doesn't win with a decent majority, but all the signs are he will.

    If he does, Cummings blog will be something to treasure.



  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 1,271
    edited November 2019
    Noo said:

    nico67 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .

    It's a fine line to be walked, especially as the Tories may have gotten a few Remainers back after getting a deal at least. Crunch time for Farage next week.
    If I was the Tories I’d say no . And it’s not even clear the BP standing down would help them that much . Most of the current BP vote is more likely to be made up of Labour Leavers who couldn’t stomach voting Tory .
    Wrong. Brexit Party voters comprise ~12% of those who voted Conservative in 2017 and ~8% of those who voted Labour in 2017. So it's around 60-40 Conservative-Labour.
    Source: YouGov fieldwork 5-6th November
    Won’t speak for him, but my view is the 60 are likely to be squeezed through the election anyway (after all they have voted Tory and Boris led Vote Leave) but the 40 won’t (never Tory but Brexit matters to them so not Labour if BXP standing). Therefore my instinct is that in the end them standing is a net plus for Boris.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Britain Elects polling average:

    Con 37.6%
    Lab 25.6%
    LD 16.5%
    BRX 10.8%
    Grn 3.5%
    Others 6.1%

    https://britainelects.com
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    They are. And private business are free to choose their customers.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,729

    I cannot believe that the choices for the country are that bumbling a*se Boris and Magic Grandpa and his Pogrom for govt.
    Just a hint: if you ever find yourself asking "is this the right moment for that hilarious pogrom pun", the answer is no.
    Well then, maybe if Mr Corbyn actually did something about antisemitism in his party I would not have the opportunity to use it. Does it mean nothing to you that Jews in this country are worried enough to contemplate fleeing aboard if Corbyn wins?
    It means a lot to me. As I've said here before I'm half Jewish and I think it's terrible that they have those fears, even if I don't agree with them. So do you think comments like yours are helping calm those fears or raising them? Also what implication do you think you're making about the left-wing Jews in this country who plan to vote Labour?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Banterman said:

    I suspect Boris & Dom's main objective all along was to create an election on their terms. They needed to get the opposition parties in such a frenzy, that they would agree to having an election without thinking about the position Boris had put them in.

    I reckon they didn't expect the surrender Benn Act or the Supreme Court ruling, but were agile enough within their overarching objective roadmap to deal with it.

    Of course this could all be bollocks if Boris doesn't win with a decent majority, but all the signs are he will.

    If he does, Cummings blog will be something to treasure.



    I agree. Remainers are arguably in the worst position they could possibly be in, because the only feasible way to stop Brexit at present is through a Corbyn premiership, and many Remainers — even strong Remainers — won't be able to accept Corbyn as PM.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Aren't you kind of undermining your own point here by tarring everyone on "the Left", as you choose to define it, as anti-Semites and Tory hating bigots?

    It's hardly painting yourself, as presumably one of "the Right", as a freewheeling, see the good in everyone, and take all as they come sort of fellow.

    My own view is that most people in the offline world are fairly pleasant whether they happen to agree with me on Brexit, tax levels, or pretty much anything else. Some aren't, but then a small number of people who agree with me on all major political matters are also absolute sh1ts!

    Hating Tories isn't any kind of bigotry. Tories are scum. Conservatives* I have time for, but never Tories.
    Hating a Tory is like hating people who torture and kill foxes. It's hating someone for their moral philosophy and the way they act on it. It's hating someone because they make awful, destructive, mean-minded choices. There is nothing wrong with hating bad people. And Tories are the absolute fucking worst.

    *People can be both Tories and Conservatives, but many Conservatives are not Tories.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Gabs2 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    They are. And private business are free to choose their customers.
    Not serving someone in a pub because they're not wearing a poppy is a step too far in my opinion, (although they're free to behave in that way if they want to).
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,729
    Noo said:

    Aren't you kind of undermining your own point here by tarring everyone on "the Left", as you choose to define it, as anti-Semites and Tory hating bigots?

    It's hardly painting yourself, as presumably one of "the Right", as a freewheeling, see the good in everyone, and take all as they come sort of fellow.

    My own view is that most people in the offline world are fairly pleasant whether they happen to agree with me on Brexit, tax levels, or pretty much anything else. Some aren't, but then a small number of people who agree with me on all major political matters are also absolute sh1ts!

    Hating Tories isn't any kind of bigotry. Tories are scum. Conservatives* I have time for, but never Tories.
    Hating a Tory is like hating people who torture and kill foxes. It's hating someone for their moral philosophy and the way they act on it. It's hating someone because they make awful, destructive, mean-minded choices. There is nothing wrong with hating bad people. And Tories are the absolute fucking worst.

    *People can be both Tories and Conservatives, but many Conservatives are not Tories.
    Do you want to maybe define your terms? Or are you mostly just trying to trigger people?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,470
    edited November 2019

    I cannot believe that the choices for the country are that bumbling a*se Boris and Magic Grandpa and his Pogrom for govt.
    Just a hint: if you ever find yourself asking "is this the right moment for that hilarious pogrom pun", the answer is no.
    Well then, maybe if Mr Corbyn actually did something about antisemitism in his party I would not have the opportunity to use it. Does it mean nothing to you that Jews in this country are worried enough to contemplate fleeing aboard if Corbyn wins?
    It means a lot to me. As I've said here before I'm half Jewish and I think it's terrible that they have those fears, even if I don't agree with them. So do you think comments like yours are helping calm those fears or raising them?
    Comments like that are all I can do to raise the issue because I have no power to resolve the problems in Labour - that is Corbyn's remit.

    What I am bemoaning is the lamentable choice I, as a voter face between a joker posing as a PM and a party that I cannot vote for because I feel it is one step away from becoming Mosely and his bl**dy brownshirts.

    There is a lot to be worried about.

    Also what implication do you think you're making about the left-wing Jews in this country who plan to vote Labour?

    Two second's thought would show you that I was not criticising anyone who votes for Corbyn, I was criticising Corbyn and his shadow-cabinet. Voters do not have a program for govt - that is the exclusive remit of political parties.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,567
    SunnyJim said:


    Good post. I agree with this.

    It's a different kind of virtue signal at times and I speak as someone who always wears one in the first few days of November. Often the paper ones fall off so you have to buy several and in-between you risk being jumped on as disrespectful.

    I see poppy flags and poppies on cars now, with sullen looks occasionally at those without one.

    You never used to get that.

    I don't wear a poppy but do donate to the BL.

    If you want to wear one, wear one.

    If you don't, don't - and don't take any cr*p from anyone who tells you you should.

    Served for 15 years in the forces, proud of my country and believe we owe it to the fallen to acknowledge their sacrifice...just do it in your own way.
    Seen remarkably few poppies sported in That London all week, despite large staffing of poppy-wallahs at every Tube station.

    Maybe people are thinking it’s time to move on.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Cyclefree said:
    Charles point earlier was about the Muslim community not fearing the outcome of the upcoming election. Also if you note what I said about one community concerns getting a whole article can pretty much only be a reference to very recent articles as we have one far more than 'a whole article' on the subject.

    Also quite frankly Aleesha tweets were far from limited to the Conservative party, it is the whole* press that is rotten not just the Conservative party.

    *Maybe a little overstatement..
    This woman just a little further down her Twitter feed laughed about pushing "Blairites" into the sea.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192578207469441029

    Pushing the Jews into the sea has been a long demand from anti-Semitic Palestinian state. They wish to restore "Arab" lands via the genocide of Jewish Israelis.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,567
    AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    AndyJS said:

    Hmmm....

    Pub landlord orders staff they can ONLY serve people this Remembrance Sunday if they're wearing a poppy

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664893/Pub-landlord-bans-non-poppy-wearers-pub.html

    Ridiculous. People should be free to choose not to wear one.
    Looks like a fucking shit boozer, with an absolute helmet as a landlord. Bristol has plenty of very decent pubs, why go to this shithole?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    edited November 2019

    Noo said:

    Aren't you kind of undermining your own point here by tarring everyone on "the Left", as you choose to define it, as anti-Semites and Tory hating bigots?

    It's hardly painting yourself, as presumably one of "the Right", as a freewheeling, see the good in everyone, and take all as they come sort of fellow.

    My own view is that most people in the offline world are fairly pleasant whether they happen to agree with me on Brexit, tax levels, or pretty much anything else. Some aren't, but then a small number of people who agree with me on all major political matters are also absolute sh1ts!

    Hating Tories isn't any kind of bigotry. Tories are scum. Conservatives* I have time for, but never Tories.
    Hating a Tory is like hating people who torture and kill foxes. It's hating someone for their moral philosophy and the way they act on it. It's hating someone because they make awful, destructive, mean-minded choices. There is nothing wrong with hating bad people. And Tories are the absolute fucking worst.

    *People can be both Tories and Conservatives, but many Conservatives are not Tories.
    Do you want to maybe define your terms? Or are you mostly just trying to trigger people?
    A potted definition would be that Conservatives are those who believe in fiscal responsibility, rule of law, incremental change and equality of opportunity.
    Tories are those who believe in structure and tradition for their own sake, rigid and absolute hierarchy and who are sceptical of the concept of rights.
    I'm not a Conservative but I share some values in common with them, as do many of us.
    Tories are the ones who let people starve because they believe in things like natural order and social Darwinism. Toryism is indifferent to consequences, and will gladly accept the immiseration of whole categories of people because they view them as born different. Toryism only ever exists in the vacuum where normal people have empathy. It's a psychotic and primitive ideology, driven by coercive power relationships.
  • Noo said:

    nico67 said:

    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    I see Farage has softened his demands for a Tory pact .

    The problem is what he’s demanding will be a gift to the opposition. Who will then say it’s a no deal at the end of next year and workers rights etc are going to be trashed .

    Unless Farage just pulls out with no pact at all then any agreement with the Tories could do them more harm than good .

    It's a fine line to be walked, especially as the Tories may have gotten a few Remainers back after getting a deal at least. Crunch time for Farage next week.
    If I was the Tories I’d say no . And it’s not even clear the BP standing down would help them that much . Most of the current BP vote is more likely to be made up of Labour Leavers who couldn’t stomach voting Tory .
    Wrong. Brexit Party voters comprise ~12% of those who voted Conservative in 2017 and ~8% of those who voted Labour in 2017. So it's around 60-40 Conservative-Labour.
    Source: YouGov fieldwork 5-6th November
    Wrong because you have ignored the different number of dont knows/dont votes/refusals in each group in those percentages, and also the different weighted sample sizes reflecting the different votes that each party got in 2017.

    YouGov's actual figures in that poll are that 10% of 550 2017 Tories intend to vote BXP, as do 6% of 515 2017 Labour voters. So that's a ratio of 55:31, nowhere near as close as your 3:2.

    However, that's only one poll and the cross breaks are quite volatile and so differ in others. In the YouGov mega poll of late October, with a much larger and therefore much more reliable sample size, the figures were as follows: 12% of 3825 of Tories intend to vote BXP, compared to 5% of 3581 Labour. Thats 459 ex Tories voting Brexit Party, compared to 179 ex Labour. A ratio of over 5:2.

    Finally, these are voters intending to vote for a party who entire policy stance is centred around stopping Brexit and has pretty well no other policies. So achieving Brexit is pretty central to how they intend to cast their vote. If the BXP were not to stand candidates, it's pretty clear that a BXP inclined voter would see their next best option for stopping Brexit as being to vote Conservative, regardless of who they voted for in 2017.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,611
    Gabs2 said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Pretty much most of these points - including the need to have an inquiry - were made on this forum in March of this year, here - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/08/what-might-the-tories-learn-from-labour/

    The fact that Johnson has resiled on his promised inquiry is a disgrace and was criticised by me (and others) on here earlier today.
    Charles point earlier was about the Muslim community not fearing the outcome of the upcoming election. Also if you note what I said about one community concerns getting a whole article can pretty much only be a reference to very recent articles as we have one far more than 'a whole article' on the subject.

    Also quite frankly Aleesha tweets were far from limited to the Conservative party, it is the whole* press that is rotten not just the Conservative party.

    *Maybe a little overstatement..
    This woman just a little further down her Twitter feed laughed about pushing "Blairites" into the sea.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/a_leesha1/status/1192578207469441029

    Pushing the Jews into the sea has been a long demand from anti-Semitic Palestinian state. They wish to restore "Arab" lands via the genocide of Jewish Israelis.
    Not only that but the sea is a source of wealth and there were some Blairite Jews so she is in fact simultaneously laughing at the idea of a genocide of Jewish people and accusing Jewish people of being money grabbing.

    You can probably interpret it into a blood libel as well and it certainly raises questions about whether she believes the holocaust happened at all.

    Also not sure about this 'anti semitic Palestinian state' pushing the Jews into the sea, surely the reality is the other way around?

    I mean I know we are supposed to concentrate on words and ignore actions but it is the Israeli government who are closer to practising genocide on the Muslims.

    Also what happened to the we should be concerned about minority communities BS you usually spout, or does that nonsense only count when you think it works to the partisan benefit of your beloved Conservatives?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,026
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    When I was preparing this I did a rough calculation of how many topics there are in the PD, how many agreements we currently have which will need to be replaced (circa 700) and how much time we will have to replace them all. About 4 and a half hours per agreement, I reckon. If it has to be done by June, halve that figure. (Then take off Parliamentary holidays.) It’s probably about 15 mins each.

    This Taking Back Back Control malarkey is really going to be absolutely marvellous!
    The whole thing is going to be an utter shambles. As you have demonstrated without too much bother, the schedules are impractical (impossible might be a better word).

    The sheer entertainment value of watching these berks deal with reality is the only benefit of Brexit. Maybe if they made Rowan Atkinson PM it could be Blackadder V. Dominic Cummings could stay on as Baldrick since he looks the part.... :D
    Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election? :lol:
    Candidates who were merely rotten would be an improvement on the current situation in many cases. [But yes, the slow acknowledgement of reality is already painfully funny to watch. But mostly painful. In the event that Boris does get a majority, 2024 could make 1997 look like a walk in the park.]
    In 2024 the Tories will have led the government one way or another for 14 years - while they'd not want to face the horrors of a 1997 style wipeout, even a big loss after 14 years in power would probably be regarded as part of the usual cycle of politics.

    Personally I'm more uncertain about who will win the 2020 GE I think is going to happen.
    Imagine if we have another hung Parliament on December 13th......!

    We may as well just ask Donald Tusk to be our new overlord. He will need a new job by then, seems to like us and is certainly more competent than any of our lot.

    He could send Rees-Mogg to be Governor of St Helena. Mark Francois can be Governor of the Falklands. His TA experience will surely terrify the Argentinians and running around the hills will get some of that excess weight off him. It is unseemly for so short a man to be quite so square in shape.

    Why? What have you got against St Helena?
    You - the British - locked up my ancestor there. (My 6-greats-grandfather, to be precise.)

    (Finally! Finally, I get to make the sort of grandiloquent statement that is usually the preserve of @Charles! Oh happy day!!)
    Have you been to St. Helena?
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Noo said:

    Aren't you kind of undermining your own point here by tarring everyone on "the Left", as you choose to define it, as anti-Semites and Tory hating bigots?

    It's hardly painting yourself, as presumably one of "the Right", as a freewheeling, see the good in everyone, and take all as they come sort of fellow.

    My own view is that most people in the offline world are fairly pleasant whether they happen to agree with me on Brexit, tax levels, or pretty much anything else. Some aren't, but then a small number of people who agree with me on all major political matters are also absolute sh1ts!

    Hating Tories isn't any kind of bigotry. Tories are scum. Conservatives* I have time for, but never Tories.
    Hating a Tory is like hating people who torture and kill foxes. It's hating someone for their moral philosophy and the way they act on it. It's hating someone because they make awful, destructive, mean-minded choices. There is nothing wrong with hating bad people. And Tories are the absolute fucking worst.

    *People can be both Tories and Conservatives, but many Conservatives are not Tories.
    When I read nonsense like this, it's clear that whenever lefties call something "bigotry", it just means "prejudice against things I like", and their "not bigotry" equals "prejudice against things I don't like".

    In other words, they've rendered the term as meaningless as the rest of their ideology. Well done!
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Wrong because you have ignored the different number of dont knows/dont votes/refusals in each group in those percentages, and also the different weighted sample sizes reflecting the different votes that each party got in 2017.

    YouGov's actual figures in that poll are that 10% of 550 2017 Tories intend to vote BXP, as do 6% of 515 2017 Labour voters. So that's a ratio of 55:31, nowhere near as close as your 3:2.

    However, that's only one poll and the cross breaks are quite volatile and so differ in others. In the YouGov mega poll of late October, with a much larger and therefore much more reliable sample size, the figures were as follows: 12% of 3825 of Tories intend to vote BXP, compared to 5% of 3581 Labour. Thats 459 ex Tories voting Brexit Party, compared to 179 ex Labour. A ratio of over 5:2.

    Finally, these are voters intending to vote for a party who entire policy stance is centred around stopping Brexit and has pretty well no other policies. So achieving Brexit is pretty central to how they intend to cast their vote. If the BXP were not to stand candidates, it's pretty clear that a BXP inclined voter would see their next best option for stopping Brexit as being to vote Conservative, regardless of who they voted for in 2017.

    55:31 is actually fairly close to 60:40 when you normalise the figures.
    If you think trying to include the don't knows is helpful (I don't) then by all means do so. Yes, my figures were excluding those, simply because I didn't think it was fair to include the don't knows as switchers and equally not fair to count them as not-switchers. If you have a model for how you think they'll break, apply it, but I don't so I'm effectively making the assumption that they will break in the same proportions as the decideds.

    Your introduction of the other figures to show that TBP numbers could be even higher toward the Conservative end of the balance supports my point: I was disagreeing with the assertion that TBP voters will be predominantly ex-Labour voters. Of course they are more Conservative than Labour.

    As for what happens in those seats where voters are lucky enough to be free from the Brexit Party scourge, I'll leave that for others to decide what the outcome will be. I wasn't trying to make any predictions, merely to say what the current state of play looks like.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    blueblue said:

    Noo said:

    Aren't you kind of undermining your own point here by tarring everyone on "the Left", as you choose to define it, as anti-Semites and Tory hating bigots?

    It's hardly painting yourself, as presumably one of "the Right", as a freewheeling, see the good in everyone, and take all as they come sort of fellow.

    My own view is that most people in the offline world are fairly pleasant whether they happen to agree with me on Brexit, tax levels, or pretty much anything else. Some aren't, but then a small number of people who agree with me on all major political matters are also absolute sh1ts!

    Hating Tories isn't any kind of bigotry. Tories are scum. Conservatives* I have time for, but never Tories.
    Hating a Tory is like hating people who torture and kill foxes. It's hating someone for their moral philosophy and the way they act on it. It's hating someone because they make awful, destructive, mean-minded choices. There is nothing wrong with hating bad people. And Tories are the absolute fucking worst.

    *People can be both Tories and Conservatives, but many Conservatives are not Tories.
    When I read nonsense like this, it's clear that whenever lefties call something "bigotry", it just means "prejudice against things I like", and their "not bigotry" equals "prejudice against things I don't like".

    In other words, they've rendered the term as meaningless as the rest of their ideology. Well done!
    Your post makes no sense. If it helps, I'm not a "leftie".
This discussion has been closed.