Printable View
One thing for sure Stavros; Jeremy Corbyn is certainly "away from home" tonight compared to Mr's Mays "home game" the other night!
I know you will be aware but just for anyone who isn't; Neil was Editor of "The Sunday Times" for a number of years and still shares its Political views! He's also actually worked for The Conservative Party!
I watched the interview and although I generally like Andrew Neil for giving his guests a hard time, I thought it was clear that this interview was not going to be about Labour policy, but the Labour leader, and he decided to spend the first half of the session dealing with Northern Ireland.
This is because it is seen as a weakness and the truth is that while Corbyn was sincere in claiming he has always supported peace and condemned 'all bombing', it is also true that he offered comradely support to Provisional Sinn Fein because like others on the left of the party, he saw them as a fraternal Socialist party, while his revolutionary sympathies and knowledge of Anglo-Irish relations were always going to tip the balance toward a United Ireland rather than a defence of 'British Imperialism'. In 1986 when he and Livingstone invited Gerry Adams to various public meetings in London, I tabled a resolution to my local party criticising them and calling for them to be called off, and was asked to withdraw it on the basis that there needed to be a wider discussion in the constituency (one party member never spoke to me again, as if I cared about that). I refused and the resolution fell but I did nevertheless attend a wider meeting at which it was clear that some sort of 'radical chic' had taken over and criticism of Sinn Fein was equivalent to defending British imperialism against Irish freedom, etc etc. Corbyn could just admit that it was part of the 'anti-imperialist struggle' but he doesn't want to frighten away the voters, and tends these days to leave the redundant orthodox Marxism-Leninism to John McDonnell.
In addition, if Corbyn was less than willing to polish his revolutionary credentials in public, he made the mistake today of giving a speech on foreign policy/security/terrorism rather than on social care, where the Tories are weak, or the prospects for economic growth and jobs when the UK leaves the EU -a subject Neil never raised in this evening's interview. Yes, it was feeble of Neil to try and distort the argument that UK foreign intervention has been the cause of terrorism in the UK, as if this were a 'monstrous' argument according to Boris Johnson, yet the ringleader of the 7/7 atrocities in London stated on tape the attacks were in revenge for regime change in Iraq, and Boris Johnson himself said this in 2005:
"The Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, and given them a new pretext.
"The Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...eremy-10506835
Where Corbyn also failed completely, was on the question of Trident. He took the view that as the Party had decided to maintain the nuclear deterrent, that he would support the decision, even though he is opposed to the deterrent, and could have said so but, being a Party Man, simply kept repeating the Party Line, as all good comrades do.
But this was pathetic on a deeper level, because it reveals the Labour Party has not only not given any serious thought to military and security policy, had it done more research it would be aware that there has been a heated debate in the Royal Navy for some years about Trident itself, and the whole future of our 'Senior Service'. Unfortunately it is not online, but the extract from an article in The Naval Review in 2016 by a former Commander of a Polaris submarine not only argues Trident is a waste of money and, in strategic terms, a useless piece of kit, he goes on to argue the future of the Royal Navy may not be able to justify manned submarines when submarine drones can do the same job at a fraction of the cost. There is a whole agenda here that Labour could have opened up to give the British public an entirely new perspective -ad indeed, a choice- on 21st century military strategy and cost, but no, Corbyn like Johnson, May and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon are still locked into the Cold War mentality out of which no sensible position can be carved.
https://www.navybooks.com/blog/2016/...eping-us-safe/
The Green Party will scrap Trident, a good enough reason for me.
To be honest Stavros; I thought it was an absolute disgrace & supports everything I & many other people think; The BBC are nothing more than a Party Political broadcast for the Conservatives! I found the interview appallingly repetitive & the almost childish like behaviour by Andrew Neil in trying to get Corbyn to say what Neil wanted him to say on the IRA & NATO totally unprofessional! Everything you say in your piece above re. Corbyn & the IRA is true but most of it was over 30 years ago, absolutely ridiculous! I personally, with many others no doubt, have made an official complaint to the BBC, complete waste of time though no doubt?
I'm no Labour person, but Corbyn is right. The media are getting all pissy for nothing. it's been accepted in military, international relations, political science and geopolitical circles for years that Western foreign policy can cause resentment. this is probably before 9/11, and was the narrative in the 7/7 bombings in London. It's common sense really. If a child's parents get killed by UK/US troops, and then they grow up and join ISIS or Al Qaeda out of revenge, what do the media really expect?
That said, Tories to win, but by no more than a 30 seat majority. No 100-plus seat landslide will happen.
I agree, I was disappointed in Neil because by now most people who are interested known Corbyn's background on the left makes him vulnerable to this issue, but yes, the Troubles are over, and the most ironic thing is that there is even talk of a United Ireland as a solution to Northern Ireland's dilemma over Brexit. Moreover, the Labour manifesto is full of promises on a wide range of policy areas, so even if Neil did not want to discuss Brexit, he could have challenged Corbyn on the NHS, Education, Policing, Housing, the Environment, Transport and on and on. This has been a poor show by the BBC, rather like the US elections where there was -to some extent understandably- an intense focus on personality, but almost no serious or extended debate on real issues like education or housing. And it will get worse because it seems to me Theresa May rushed into this election and Tory policies were thrown together without any real depth of thought, and to cover up the social care fiasco, for example, they have decided to divert the campaign believing that Corbyn is weak on terrorism and defence and will -as they did with Kinnock- recruit the Murdoch press and the Mail to produce negative copy rather than offer the public a positive view of their own portfolio. But even there they have not done very well, Michael Fallon made a complete tit of himself on Channel 4 News, helped of course by the madness of King Boris. Question is -will this produce the desired result? If the Tories are returned but not with the huge majority May banked on, does this weaken her position in the party, and how will this affect the Brexit negotiations?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Seems Mr Fallon's had another bad morning on "Peston on Sunday" earlier today, not sure if it's repeated again this evening. Jeremy Corbyn also made an appearance, fresh from Wembley after watching his team Arsenal win the FA Cup. (He was on Twitter last night!)
He was asked about his IRA connections briefly & answered them well, he was also asked about Labour policies and the costings of it all.
Andrew Neil take note! :loser:
Paxman has a go tonight, Monday. He has described himself as a 'One Nation Tory' so maybe he will be kind to Theresa May, though he might try to get her to admit she changed her mind on social care policy -for some reason changing one's mind on policy is seen as a weakness in this country,even if it makes sense. Although I would like to think he will not press Corbyn on the IRA, HAMAS -for some reason he gets a free pass on Hugo Chavez- I suspect this will be tackled early on before he challenges Corbyn on its manifesto highlights. One thing Paxman and others might like to note is that when Corbyn was in favour of a United Ireland and accused of being a friend of the IRA, the Tories described the ANC as a terrorist organization funded by Moscow and supported the Inkatha Movement, Mandela was either thus also a terrorist or not worthy of their attention -until the Federation of Conservative Students produced 'Hang Mandela' badges and Norman Tebbit shut it down in 1986 (though the precise reason was their defence of Nicolas Tolstoi who made bogus claims about former Tory Ministers and the repatriation of Soviet POWs to the USSR after the war where it is claimed they were executed). And guess what, when Norman Tebbit was challenged on his party's demonization of Mandela and the ANC he repliedQuote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
"He was the leader of a political movement which had begun to resort to terrorism. You have to act within the constraints of the time and I get very irritated by people who judge the past by the present."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nelson-mandela
Meanwhile in the Telegraph on Sunday, Simon Heffer trotted out that old canard about British Marxists: that Corbyn hates Britain. This was the argument the Daily Mail used to smear the Miliband brothers a few years ago because their father, a refugee from the Nazis was a Marxist who wrote critically of capitalism (really?, Gosh!) and wanted to see a socialist Britain (even more shocking). It is of course possible to love one's country but not want its citizens to sleep rough on the streets or rely on food banks to eat. As for hate, you find more bile written about the UK in the Daily Mail and in UKIP leaflets than you do in Labour Party publications.
lol...i don't care really what Lapafrog thinks about me. his only issue is that he mocks me for posting, when i post in the same manner as everybody else. but fine. he needs to suck cock, or fuck or get fucked, it would relax him a lot.
I think this thing on Diane Abbott is a bit stupid. It was thirty years ago, so what? the entire issue of Northern Ireland is highly complex, and if anybody knows the history of Ireland, one would realise that England and later the UK has been the aggressor.
While it is true that over the course of 800 years of Anglo-Irish relations the British made catastrophic mistakes, I don't see how any observer of the Troubles since 1968 can either justify the violence committed on both sides in the Province, or detonating bombs in pubs in Birmingham, and litter bins in Warrington in England, to cite just two examples. In these cases it was not the 'UK' that was the aggressor but the Provisional IRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrington_bomb_attacks
I think Heffers quote on Corbyn should read[ he hates everything about Britain] to be more appropriate. I grew up in 70's Britain, it wasn't exactly happy days but all the Tories go on about is the 3 day week, power-cuts & Trade Unions being in control of everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Very few people were living in poverty back then compared to today!
The IRA issue is part of the centuries' old domination. Or more accurately a consequence/culmination of it. Irish indepedence started long before the Collins Civil War, or the modern IRA. it's a complex issue, and to the IRA it's about liberation from occupation going back centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
It is possible to identify with a group's political aims without justifying acts of violence deliberately directed against civilians. If you believe there is a particular history that justifies murdering random people in a pub, don't you think the burden is on you to establish it? Saying it is complex doesn't do it really.Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
Your post only makes sense if you ally yourselves with the minority who opposed the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty who at various stages between 1926 and 1997 attempted to use the armed struggle to create a United Ireland. Such an alliance cannot accept that the 1921 Treaty was a legal arrangement, cannot accept that the majority of Irish citizens accepted it -the refuseniks were defeated in the Civil War-, and denies the right of Protestants in the Northern provinces that remained in the UK to rule the six counties. This places you on the fringe of history, and on its violent fringe if you subscribe to the fiction that the six counties were 'under occupation', a legal nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by holzz
The irony of this rejection of Carson and his followers, is that no intelligent Irish citizen would take away from its history the Gaelic Revival through which Lady Gregory (Protestant), William Butler Yeats (Protestant), and JM Synge (Protestant) led a phenomenal explosion of Irish creativity that lasts to this day, and not just in the Abbey Theatre. Whatever role the Revival played in creating a practical and cultural identity for Ireland as a country independent from the British Empire -and it was the first 'colony' to break away and achieve its independence- should be factored in, not deleted from the account.
The problem is that revolutionaries -or romantic revolutionary wannebes- are addicted to violence as the physical means to change the status quo, but the 'armed struggle' created more problems than it solved, and in the end, there was a negotiated solution that could have been agreed upon years before had the parties not been so rigidly attached to their positions, as is the case in most conflict zones today be it Israel-Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and so on.
It comes down to simple questions implied in Broncofan's post above: does violence achieve anything? What did violence achieve in Northern Ireland?
Violence solves nothing, but even that depends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I just think whilst terrorism is wrong, ignoring past events is foolish. It's never that black and white. ISIS is doing wrong, but then they were bombed by Bush and Blair for no good reason (that we know of). So it cannot be so black and white really.
I am not sure if we learned anything from last night's tv debate. Theresa May does not look comfortable being tested in public by the public, which in a way is odd for someone who has chosen to go into public life and has the top political job in the country. I understand her strength is in one-to-one discussions, but that is no good for tv. Nevertheless, she repeated most of what we know, and as we do not know how the Brexit negotiations will proceed, we still have no really clear idea how it will affect the UK economy over the next five years, which makes both Tory and Labour promises on spending look and sound hollow.
In Corbyn's case, his personal opposition to nuclear weapons has been set aside because the party has made a decision and that is what he must go with. But this suggests that if the party is going to be the source of policy, presumably as expressed at the annual Conference, then the Parliamentary party merely becomes a group of delegates to the House of Commons from that Conference, and that voters are not in fact electing someone to represent their constituency but someone who represents the party. This is a re-run of the attempt that was made in the 1980s to make the Parliamentary party accountable to the membership as a whole, and while this might sound reasonable it is in fact an erosion of parliamentary democracy given that MPs are elected to represent a place, not a party. It has already been demonstrated that Corbyn cannot control his own party in Parliament, so I don't see how this new format can work. Conference will make policy, MPs will refuse to support it -what happens then?
Tony Benn once said he thought the Cabinet should be elected by the party membership, and this is the trend that Corbyn represents, as with many economic policies, a return to the ideas we thought had been buried by electoral failure. But what it also shows is that the party has not adjusted to the 21st century to offer any new thinking on defence or education -the same is true of the Tories- so that we have a debate at a critical moment for the UK that has offered the public a re-hash of failed policies with not a single idea that has any substance because the great unknown, the UK outside the EU, remains what it is.
On balance, May retains her lead in the polls, and though it is remarkable how Corbyn has managed to close the gap, in part because a lot of people like Labour policy, in part because of flaws in the Tory manifesto, the Tories should be returned but with a slightly better majority rather than the landslide the Polls predicted when the election was called. The problem as usual is that many people have already made up their minds, and while the first time voters seem to be pro-Labour, they have to vote on the day, if they have not already cast their postal ballots, so I am not sure if these tv debates achieve anything.
Obviously, I'm biased...But I think May gave an absolutely dismal performance last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
As for her lead in the polls, and being retuned with a slightly better majority, we shall see, Brother Stavros! :p
For those who missed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiDvn3ZWgN4
The 56:30 mark's a bit of a masterclass in not answering anything!
Though, if I had to choose a highlight, it would be the bloke at the end of the May segment who went to give her a Standing Ovation, saw he was on his own, and sat down again, right sharpish!
The nowithtsanding moment was indeed priceless, I would not be surprised if the Mail and Telegraph wonder if the audience was selected to be biased, not least as the veteran journalist David Dimbleby:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
The veteran BBC broadcaster David Dimbleby has intervened in the election campaign to say that Jeremy Corbyn has not been treated fairly in the press.
The broadcaster, who is often regarded as the voice of the nation after decades of fronting Question Time, election night specials and state occasions, strayed into unfamiliar territory by backing a longstanding complaint by Corbyn’s supporters.
Speaking before a Question Time special on Thursday when he will interview the Labour leader and Theresa May, Dimbleby pointed out the rightwing bias of most British newspapers and complained of their “lazy pessimism”.
In an interview with the Radio Times, Dimbleby said: “I don’t think anyone could say that Corbyn has had a fair deal at the hands of the press, in a way that the Labour party did when it was more to the centre, but then we generally have a rightwing press.”
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ish-newspapers
Dimbleby sold the family newspaper business for around £12 million in 2001 so he should know about a biased press. One wonders how long it will be before the Mail and Telegaph see this as confirmation that DD works for the Bolshevik Broadcasting Committee.
The polls still give May a lead but not as great as it was when the campaign began. But like I said, I think many people have made up their minds.
https://ig.ft.com/elections/uk/2017/polls/
That's all a bit odd Stavros as I thought Dimbleby was "The Face of the British Establishment fronting the BBC1". Staggering if he's spoken out about the bias shown by his own media machine!
As for last night, yet again a personal attack on Jeremy Corbyn about things he allegedly said 35 years ago during the Falklands conflict, troubles in Ireland and his dealings with HAMAS! Didn't see the interview with Mr's May as the sound of her voice makes me physically ill, sorry for my own bias there!
Are there any Conservatives here.
Come on, stop hiding, don't be embarrassed, it's all friendly fire!
Well, except this.
I always thought Boris was slightly amusing...For a cunt.
But this is disgraceful.
Fuqaduq, I'm almost ashamed for him!
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn-BUJJSsoQ" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn-BUJJSsoQ
It is a simple, if tired point. Do you want a Prime Minister who confronts and defeats terrorists, or one who sympathizes with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Inside that question are many more -if it was wrong for Jeremy Corbyn to invite Gerry Adams to the House of Commons, was it wrong for the government to be talking to representatives of the IRA at the same time? Legally, yes, Corby was at fault, because the IRA/Sinn Fein were guilty of crimes against the UK and its citizens. Morally? Difficult, because it may have suggested to the IRA/Sinn Fein that they would get a better deal from a Labour, than a Tory government (as indeed was the case).
If the USA describes HAMAS as a terrorist organization, why was that organization when it started up given so much support by the state of Israel, an ally of the USA?
If Corbyn was soft on a United Ireland, sympathetic to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, is it not also true that Margaret Thatcher was a supporter of and gave a personal welcome to General Pinochet in 1999 even though his regime tortured a British citizen- Sheila Cassidy (the secret police had trained German Shepherds how to rape a woman when she was place in a prone position) -and did not that same party regard the ANC in South Africa as a 'terrorist' organization'?
Corbyn's position on the Falkland Islands is indeed weak, I recalll at the time how the left ridiculed it as an imperialist adventure. It was in the early stages seen as crucial to ousting Thatcher from power. But if you step back and think, it would have made sense for the British and Argentine governments to agree a joint sovereignty arrangement which gave Argentina and the UK an equal share in the oil and gas resources of the Falkland/Malvinas basin (identified c1971), gave citizens equal access (because 99.99% of Argentinians are no more interested in invading and occupying the Falklands than the English are in living in the Outer Hebrides), and made all war pointless because both states were in agreement that co-operation makes more sense than conflict.
And if it is the case that Corbyn cannot control his own party in Parliament, bear in mind there are ferocious beasts in the Conservative Party who unlike Theresa May have hated the EU even before the UK joined in 1973 and regard her with suspicion. They need her to win the election, they don't need her to carry on the negotiations. Look closely and you will see that there are as many cracks in the Tory party as there are in Labour.
A short note on polls -this article in the Independent argues there could be a hung parliament -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7764271.html
Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus made this claim a week ago, but has since revised its forecast to give the Tories a 92 seat majority, with Angus Robertson -leader of the SNP in the Commons, losing his seat to the Tories. The micro-data they use shows that the most left-wing street in Britain is in the constituency of Brighton & Hove- a power base for the Greens, and possibly the 'gayest' (is this a word?) constituency in the UK. The most right-wing is in Knightsbridge, but let's not go there (especially not if you have a ts girlfriend who loves shopping, plastic stretches only so far, darling).
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/A...e30_part2.html
Are you saying Terrorism would be worse under Corbyn? I don't really see your point? As I've said; Corbyns views from half his lifetime ago(& he's 68!) aren't relevant to most voters today despite the media making out they are!
Oh, & how is Mr's May confronting & defeating terrorism? Almost 20,000 Police officers & numerous Border Force officers have been cut by her party & will continue one assumes as she never talks about party policies? Start sleeping with one eye open if these "strong & stable" people hold on to power! :nervous:
Bit of Fluff #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S99-3C16SA
Bit of Fluff #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgnYCQeRO8
Oi, Granddad, your girl did well for herself!
Nice but Tim was, well, what can you say, nice?
Funniest line of the night had to go to Leanne Wood, and her "There's no such thing as a free divorce", in response to Nutsac, er, Nuttalls' stance on paying fuck all in regards to brexit.
(Sorry Jocks) Where the SNP there?
Open derision for Rudderless.
All things being even, and all politicians being aresoles, Jeremy Corbyn *is* Lord Of The Rings.
OMFG, for the first time in my lifetime, we're looking at a possible LABOUR government!
I underestimated my age in that last post...Wouldn't want anyone thinking I was forty seven!
Just seen a live TV interview on BBC Breakfast with, of all people, Boris Johnson, trying to justify why his leader(Mr's May) was missing from a live TV debate yesterday evening....should of renamed it "Car Crash TV!" This election is getting very interesting. :D
I'm leaning towards the Monster Raving Loony Party, I love their manifesto pledge to introduce a 99p coin and a 30-day cooling-off period for the General Election at last something's making sense :D
Looks like even Stavros as become worried?:shrug
Slightly less elated this morning.
What do they say about posting and drinking? Oooops!
But I do not care...Even the hangover's worth it!
Who can blame you. Things are looking a hell of a lot better than when the election was called. Right? Every article that comes up on my feed says May's lead has narrowed and that she has made a mistake by thinking she can sit on a lead. Still election polling leaves a lot of room for error, and that doesn't cut either way but is a caution not to take any result for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
She's obscenely arrogant, think she can just talk about "strong stable" leadership, Br-exit(they have no idea on that either) don't have to turn up to live television debates, have virtually no policies, few they have published have no justifications on costings; It's the biggest circus in town since Billy Smarts!.....but they've got the media onside & that's a HUGE advantage!Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Setting aside the gnomic maths in your post, Jericho, I can't see a Labour government emerging from this election unless there is a truly dramatic collapse of the Tory vote in England. On the one hand yes, the election of 2010 resulted in a House of Commons with no overall control and the formation of a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, underlining the fact the Tories had failed to win an election since 1992, and even the victory in 2015 only produced a majority of 12. That could be overturned on a modest swing, but 2015 saw the decimation of the Labour vote in Scotland with no sign that the party is going to return to the days when its Scottish MPs were numbered in double figures. It is just about conceivable there could be a Labour-SNP coalition were it not for the SNP rejecting this option. But while Martin Baxter's Election Calculus has revised downwards a prediction with the Tories having a majority of 76, there are no signs that the share of the Labour vote is going to win them seats taken from the Tories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Put simply, the Tories have conducted their worst election campaign since the 1990s. It was clear from the start that they wanted it to be a personality contest between 'Strong and Stable' May versus 'Loony left' Corbyn. What happened is that the Tories did not plan ahead a manifesto with sound policies, but cobbled some ideas together, and not only were they not costed -rather like going to a restaurant which has a menu but not prices- on a key policy like social care that affects not just many elderly people but also their property, the policy was inserted late and without any consultation across the party with people who might have advised May to amend it or even to just omit it.
The consequence has been that Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green has disappeared from the campaign, and Mrs May failed to persuade anyone it was part of a 'consultation paper' and not a 'u-turn', and as 'Strong and Stable' became -thanks to Michael Crick at Channel 4 News- 'Weak and Wobbly- May retreated into a temporary hermitage leaving Corbyn to mop up the resentment and in the process come across as a rather likeable chap who has some sincerely held beliefs about poverty, educational opportunity and taxes.
This week has seen the launch of a new brand for Mrs May who is now lauding the 'future' for the UK as we leave the EU, and is the only person who can lead the Brexit negotiations to get the best deal, and if past form is anything to go by the Murdoch press and the Mail will be trying to smear Corbyn and Labour -if not him then Dianne Abbott, John McDonnell or someone else- to tilt the mood away from Corbyn. But senior Tories are invisible, and it will all come down again to the magnetic personality of Theresa May...David Davis has been around a lot, and I have seen a lot of Amber Rudd, even though her father died in the last ten days (having lost her husband, the journalist AA Gill earlier this year), but nothing of Liam Fox, Philip Hammond, Justine Greening, Liz Truss, Sajid Javid, and others.
So yes, there is a swing in Labour's step, and the Tories look, well, laboured, but behind the scenes the two parties are fairly well informed and the only issue for the Tories is the size of the majority, because the smaller it is, the weaker it is for Mrs May.
The latest Election Calculus is here-
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Like I say, betting odds are the ones to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
When was the last time you told a pollster the truth? I tell them the exact opposite, just for the fuck of it. But when it comes to laying money down...
Even if they do win, I think May's finished after the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
They'll have won in spite of her, not because of.
But, Craig Mackinlay getting charged, another attack on the NHS...Call it pie in the sky, wishful thinking, whatever.
I'm feeling that dramatic collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
He's had other things on his mind! :dead:
Welcome back Stavros.
Thing is; Tory voters will go out & vote in appalling weather, floods, on crutches, in wheelchairs, in taxis(they can afford it) while Labour voters won't be so committed, a lazy day in nursing a hangover & that's a vote wasted!
Hurts & pains me but I think Stavros is right?
Worth a "wager" though if Corbyn is good odds!
I wasn't gone for long! Whatever -betting on elections is rarely worth the money owing to the fact in the UK you only have two choices, thus to win this election the Tories are between 9and 14 to one on to win, Labour mostly 6-1. However, if you believe Theresa May is not going to last as Tory leader, there are some curious odds on her successor- set aside Nigel Farage who is not even a member of the party, you can get 40/1 for David Davis whereas the favourites are Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd 4,5 or 6 to one -but I am sceptical about Boris as I think he is now seen as a maverick who will not unite the party, if anyone can. The real issue would be who is soft on Brexit and who is hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
My advice would be to save your money and back the horse in tomorrow's Derby that has already won over the distance.
Here are the odds:
General Election:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...ion/most-seats
Next Tory leader:
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...rvative-leader