|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 16, 2023 7:18:47 GMT
pjw1961"It is not an argument which Westminster would take at all seriously." So can we take it that any Westminster Government elected with less than 50% of the vote should not be taken seriously? And presumably in Scotland, a UK Labour Government elected with less than 40% of the Scottish vote should "not be taken seriously" in Scotland And could you enlighten us as to what Scottish voters need to do "to be taken seriously" by Westminster? Or should they not pursue a parliamentary route at all? Please tell us.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 16, 2023 7:23:07 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,149
|
Post by domjg on Oct 16, 2023 7:24:01 GMT
Never supported the English rugby team since properly introduced to rugby when a student in Wales in the 90s. I was struck then and now by their lack of soul and general 'public schoolness' compared to the passion of the other home nations teams and of course, especially Wales.
They never changed the habit of trying to win matches with kicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Oct 16, 2023 7:28:59 GMT
Having written software for bookies I can assure you that apart from setting initial odds research, gut feel and so on don't enter into it. It is purely a mathematical calculation to make money. In the early days of widespread Internet use I had a friend who paid for his holidays using the money he made from software he'd written that trawled the Web comparing odds and placing bets so that he'd make a modest amount of money based on the differences between the odds offered on different sites. Only mathematical and coding knowledge required. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 16, 2023 7:42:52 GMT
All that says is that gamblers react to polls. So it is the polls that have a scientific basis and should prove accurate, not the betting. There have been no recent polls released on Mid Beds, therefore any movement in the betting odds is based on people placing bets on a 'gut feel' of what may be happening. 'Gut feel' has no basis in fact and is as likely to be wrong as right in a close contest. I am somewhat amazed that on a site dedicated to opinion polling on the basis of stratified sampling quite so many people seem to take gambling odds seriously. What the bookies have going for them is the need to make money - at least over time, even if they don't call every bet correctly. That's as true for elections as anything else. Whilst there may not have been any *official* recent polls, t hat's not to say they haven't been able to gather any sense from their own research, even if as simple as taking to canvassers. Yes, "gut feel" has no basis in fact, but will be reacted upon by the bookies changing rates to cover themselves, such that whatever the result they will still make a profit. They hope. And what no one can do anything about are unforeseen circumstances. Voter intention changing during a campaign, possibly due to a candidate making a big gaffe. So whilst the bookies favourite doesn't always win, it should be seen as a pretty good best guess at any point in time. But we'll see? That is nonsense. The idea Betfred and the rest have been talking to canvassers is daft (a tiny handful of punters might have, but not most of them either). The bookies set the odds based on betting patterns, not who they think will win. The punters bet on the same publicly available information the rest of us have, plus a stab at beating the odds by betting on an outsider. It has zero meaning beyond that. We are getting into the realms of fantasy here. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 7:43:58 GMT
Whilst I agree entirely that LL’s theory is incorrect, I think this is for different reasons than you suggest. Since this concerns number, one of your many strengths, it is worth following through. If someone is, for example, a seventh generation Australian (so going back to early nineteenth century), they have no fewer than 64 gggggparents, plus another 62 intervening ancestors. That one of them arrived as a convict is, frankly, a racing certainty. I suggest that the Wiki reference on this is misleading/incorrect. Certainly if you follow the sources through they look very tenuous. Also, I think in the early stages there were more or less equal proportions of settlers and convicts. My quarrel with LL concerns the notion of ‘convict blood’ which underpins his suggestions. I plan to return to this in due course. I never said anything about "convict blood" as you know perfectly well. What occurred to me, was that if you wanted to collect a panel for a certin sort of characteristic, I am not at all clear what you would get if you just collected together convicts from back in the day when they were being transported. Such a selection could result in people with more courage and determination than the average citizen. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 16, 2023 7:45:25 GMT
pjw1961 "It is not an argument which Westminster would take at all seriously." So can we take it that any Westminster Government elected with less than 50% of the vote should not be taken seriously? And presumably in Scotland, a UK Labour Government elected with less than 40% of the Scottish vote should "not be taken seriously" in Scotland And could you enlighten us as to what Scottish voters need to do "to be taken seriously" by Westminster? Or should they not pursue a parliamentary route at all? Please tell us. That was graham not me. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 16, 2023 7:46:24 GMT
There was much talk in the press over the weekend about the likelihood that Labour will water down their manifesto commitments on Lords reform and the much mooted National Care plan, thereby further playing into the narrative of their overall timidity and caution. The need to "bomb proof" every policy against Tory and right wing media attack.
There are two ways of looking at this, I suppose. For the sceptic, it's revealing of a genuine dearth of ideas and a reluctance to disturb the status quo in any way that might frighten off wavering Tory voters or, more generously, it's a sensible electoral ploy instead that says very little about how radical Labour may be in government. A setting out of priorities and the creation of plenty of space to go much further on many issues where commitments had once been vague. Manifestos not really ever being straitjackets or detailed prescriptions for government.
Labour have probably learned from past election defeats, and there have been many to learn from them, that their political enemies, and there are many of those too, are yearning for sticks with which to both beat and misrepresent them.
Death taxes and Tax bombshells and a general intention to enslave the British people are all attack lines the Tories and their media allies are desperate to run again. They probably will anyway, but probably best not the feed the beast. Wrong foot them instead.
It's not the political discourse, media landscape and electioneering world we'd like to live in ideally but it is, sadly, the one we inhabit.
We may just have to trust Starmer and his team on this and cut them some slack when the eventual manifesto reveals itself as a masterpiece of ambiguity, vagueness and distant dreams. No hostages to fortune contained therein.
The keys to Downing Street are often obtained with such manifestos. Combined with a popular determination to evict the existing tenants, of course
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 16, 2023 7:50:58 GMT
pjw1961
It appears that it isn't just the soul of football battling with the betting industry, but authentic psephology too.
Betfair and Paddy Power our latter-day Butlers and Curtices!
🤔😫
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 16, 2023 7:52:39 GMT
pjw1961 There is no point continuing this discussion - there is plenty of scientific research available on all kinds of betting markets, including political, if you are interested - it's a fascinating subject. Edit: PS  The posters on this site are the equivalent of the average punter on the gee-gees who thinks he has an edge but in reality loses steadily in the long term. In the meantime the professional punters either a) have inside knowledge on a particular event or b) understand how betting markets work and use it to their advantage. Quote it, and since psephology is my real thing (not polling) I'll show you why its nonsense. I've spent 40 years studying the subject so I'm more than an average punter - which is why I never bet on elections! Well you could try this for starters: Polls to probabilities: Comparing prediction markets and opinion polls James Read and Leighton Vaughan Williams International Journal of Forecasting Volume 35, Issue 1, January–March 2019, Pages 336-350 Abstract The forecasting of election outcomes is a hugely popular activity, and not without reason: the outcomes can have significant economic impacts, for example on stock prices. As such, it is economically important, as well as of academic interest, to determine the forecasting methods that have historically performed best. However, the forecasts are often incompatible, as some are in terms of vote shares while others are probabilistic outcome forecasts. This paper sets out an empirical method for transforming opinion poll vote shares into probabilistic forecasts, and then evaluates the performances of prediction markets and opinion polls. We make comparisons along two dimensions, bias and precision, and find that converted opinion polls perform well in terms of bias, while prediction markets are good for precision. Vaughan William is Professor of Economics and Finance and Head of Economics Research and Director of the Betting Research Unit and Political Forecasting Unit at Nottingham Business School. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 7:58:42 GMT
What the nazis did was crimes against humanity, which cannot in any way be justified by what another government has done since. Well the thing is, this concept of crimes against humanity is a pretty modern one. Examples where it has been enforced are normally where the victor in a conflict prosecutes the loser. Time after time after time governments of all sorts carry out exterminations of inconvenient populations, one way or another. An Israeli spokeswoman this morning was keen to highlight how Britain had killed thousands of german civilians in bombing raids on Germany. She argued we killed a lot more than Israel. So, when it comes down to it, governments almost invariably will sanction just about anything and believe they are doing the right thing. I quoted St augustine of Hippo, apparently credited with developing just war theory. Which apparently says anything is justified if you have no alternative in defending yourself. Blowing up Germans during WW2 was generally uncontroversial. (or perhaps, while people at the time would be aware of the impact, the controversy has largely come afterwards) Its interesting looking at the Ukraine/Russia war, and see how in our news Russian caused civilian deaths get highlighted, whereas Ukraine ones dont. Presumably in Russia this is precisely the reverse. Neither side is willing to surrender simply because civilians are being killed. But for that matter, just why is a civilian death unacceptable if a soldier's death is? Civilians really are taking part in the war effort. Israel very obviously plays the card of antisemitism at every opportunity. It bigs up antisemitism, adding in anything it can. But the bottom line is that reaction to the foreign policy of the Israeli government is nothing to do with antisemitism, it should be judged on its merits exactly as if it was Russia, or Ukraine, or Britain, China, or America doing the same. To a large extent this is a civil war, where the original people have been displaced by european settlers. Consider how the original populatin of the area was only 15% jewish. Contrast with the recent Australian referendum which admittedly failed, but sought to enshrine rights of the native population...which in israel would be arabs, at least from the point before the settlement program began. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 8:02:53 GMT
CON failed with their GE'19 commitment to build 300k/yr and will shift to NIMBY By 'failed'you mean they didnt try? |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 16, 2023 8:03:06 GMT
Labour's apparent decision to abandon House of Lords reform destroys Gordon Brown's proposals to "entrench" devolution in a new UK constitutional settlement.
His proposal as summarised by the IFG was:
"The central proposal on devolution to the nations is for a reformed second chamber to have the power to block the UK Parliament from legislating in devolved areas without the consent of the devolved new legislatures. "
Labour could go ahead with the various levels of talking shops that Brown proposed but they haven't even committed to that. There were no proposals in the Brown Report for any significant increase in devolved powers for Scotland or Wales.
The Shadow Scottish Secretary did commit to continuing the current government policy of by-passing the Scottish Parliament and interfering in devolved areas and Labour will it seems continue Tory policy of not "granting" a second independence referendum in any circumstances based on parliamentary elections.
All of which suggests that Labour and the Tories will be going into the next UK General Election more or less fully aligned on devolution to the nations and to local authorities within England.
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 16, 2023 8:07:06 GMT
The Ireland v SA, France v NZ, Ireland v NZ and France v SA games were played at a far higher level than anything else we have seen. England and Argentina are in the Semis only due to the draw. But then the semis will be a one off game so who knows? I love the final qualification, pj. At least Alec was certain in predicting England's inevitable comeuppance against South Africa next week! Actually your qualification rather makes my point about the essence of tournament sport, especially at the knock out stages. Every game is a one-off now. Previous games and form an irrelevance. England won their group and progressed. They also won their first one off game. Now definitely one to go, maybe two. They're still at the table, rolling the dice. France, Ireland, Wales, Italy and Scotland aren't. Sob stories about difficult draws and hard luck tales of heroic defeats in epic games are mere sour grapes. The thing is that luck plays such a huge part in a one-off game. Which is why it's much easier for a lesser team to win the FA Cup than win the league and rare to do the double. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 16, 2023 8:07:18 GMT
pjw1961"That was graham not me. " Apologies. I won't bother asking graham the same questions as views from the 1970s are not especially helpful in the 21st century.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 8:08:46 GMT
So think about it - all that political punters have to go on is the same past electoral history, newspapers reports, rumour, speculation and - if they are lucky - the occasional opinion poll that people on this site have access to. In fact in this context we probably are people with "expert knowledge". And yet most of us expected Labour to win Uxbridge and so did the betting markets - Labour 1/10, Conservatives 11/2 as I posted the other day. yes, good point. In defence of us experts, I'd suggest firstly almost all polls are about national trends asking about the result of a general election. Whereas by-elections are an opportunity to express an opinion on parties without the risk of government changing. But also, it can be very hard to pin down exactly what issues will matter locally. In Uxbridge it has now been concluded this was ULEZ, and it made more difference than expected. But that could still be an indication the polling in general was correct, and this result only happened because it was a by election, whereas it would and will revert to national trend in a general. (although I also picked up an argument that Indian immigrants strongly vote con, and their impact in this constituency may have been missed by pundits) |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 16, 2023 8:09:13 GMT
mercian - "...whether it's a horse, a politician or whatever,.." Didn't know there was a horse standing in Mid Beds? Mind - would probably do a better job than the ass they elected last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 16, 2023 8:10:37 GMT
hireton - "Subject to confirmation but a potentially very significant election result in Poland:" Something wrong surely? Wasn't the EU about the implode/be ripped apart by the march of the far right? They need us more than we need them!
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 16, 2023 8:11:35 GMT
The Betfair odds have shifted markedly to a Tory win - now as short as 2.14 (Lab 2.76). That doesn't feel right - DYOR but if both parties were on 2.2 that'd IMO be about right.' Betfair is a 'market' which is somewhat different to a normal 'bookies' but mercian's point about punters pushing the odds with 'weight of money' are even more relevant. Anyway, no one if forced to bet and IMO our country has a bit of a gambling problem but IMO then CON's likelihood to win is <<47% so that is me at 2.12 looking to 'lay' (bet against) CON winning that one. Just 'fun' money and I'd already locked in profits from backing CON when they were <20% likelihood to win back in Jul-Aug   The implications of CON winning (holding) that seat are IMO of more importance than one seat. It would be a U&SR style 'surprise' that if, despite CON's 'national' issues and polling, they keep a seat in a 'free protest vote' against them. I hope LAB HQ don't over-react if they lose the seat. LDEM? Well their party conf motions have been ignored in the past but if they allow themselves to be painted as 'turbo YIYBY' building loads of houses on greenbelt in a GE then Davey's hopes for 'ultra local' (ie individual seat specific) campaign is going to be ripped to pieces by CON looking to hold onto the 'posh/leafy suburb*' seats that make up most CON-LDEM marginals and LDEM target seats. * North Norfolk and seats in SW are not 'suburb' but would fall under the 'posh/leafy' seats where NIMBYism is rife. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 16, 2023 8:13:25 GMT
Johntel
But wouldn't what's being talked about in that paper you cite just be describing how betting markets and odds track opinion polls, not the ability of betting markets to forecast election outcomes in the absence of psephological data?
In other words, aren't you putting the horse in front of the cart? Markets reflect the weather, they don't create it.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,559
|
Post by neilj on Oct 16, 2023 8:13:31 GMT
There can be no justification for the murder of children and babies, absolutely disgusting, scum of the earth www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67119183"A man has been charged with murder and hate crimes after allegedly stabbing two people because they were Muslim. Joseph Czuba, 71, is accused of killing a six-year-old boy and injuring a woman, 32, in Plainfield, Illinois... Both victims were taken to hospital, but the boy later died. It was later established that the child was stabbed 26: |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 16, 2023 8:14:34 GMT
pjw1961 It appears that it isn't just the soul of football battling with the betting industry, but authentic psephology too. Betfair and Paddy Power our latter-day Butlers and Curtices! 🤔😫 I've got a feeling you must have bumped your head going into one of your long tunnels if you think England are going to win the world cup Batty |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 8:18:53 GMT
So the brits first let in Jewish settlers, which pissed off the Arabs. Then because the arabs were in revolt, they stopped letting in jews and so pissed off the jews as well. Brilliant strategy. I dont see how your account is disagreeing with mine? (sigh) You're shifting your ground again, as you often do in your interminable debates with alec. This was what you originally said: "Britain sowed the wind by inviting Europeans to settle in palestine and created conflict in a country with a small jewish minority which was at peace with itself. Had we not done this the area would today be just another arab country." Palestine wasn't part of the Empire, we were given a mandate by the League of Nations to try to manage it, as an experienced imperial power. It wasn't a closed country so there was immigration. Even before the war Britain tried to slow down or prevent the Jewish influx because of the trouble it was causing. This is pretty much the opposite of what you said originally (quoted above). I am not going to get into a months-long debate about it. so won't be saying any more on the subject (to you at least). "Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine; within two months a memorandum was circulated to the Cabinet by a Zionist Cabinet member, Herbert Samuel, proposing the support of Zionist ambitions in order to enlist the support of Jews in the wider war." "The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan, both of which had been conceded by the Ottoman Empire following the end of World War I in 1918." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine"In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population; " " During the Mandate, the area saw the rise of two nationalist movements: the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. Intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine ultimately produced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and the 1944–1948 Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine." We sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. We deliberately set out to create civil war in the area to further the aims of the British Empire. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2023 8:24:16 GMT
Philip Collins's praise of Starmer in The Times today pretty much sums things up. He says that KS's " betray(al) the left-wing pledges on which he ran " is "Learning on the job "  Another quote is illustrative of the article :- "Of those current shadow cabinet members who did vote in the 2010 leadership election, Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, Jonathan Reynolds, Ian Murray, Alan Campbell and Jenny Chapman backed David Miliband. Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood, Hilary Benn, Lucy Powell and Emily Thornberry voted for Ed. Yvette Cooper (understandably) and John Healey (not so much) voted for Ed Balls. If we add in Ed Miliband, who presumably voted for himself, the 16 MPs who now sit in Starmer’s shadow cabinet were split. Faced with a rather obvious question of political strategy, eight of them got the answer wrong. Time and defeat, however, teach a lesson, and their actions since suggest that Rachel Reeves and Shabana Mahmood, for example, have repented of their sin. Reeves, whose conference performance was her best yet, gave a speech not entirely unlike the one David Miliband would have given had he not lost to his brother. Like Starmer himself, Reeves is smart enough to note the Labour Party’s serial collisions with reality and decide that driving at a brick wall might be suboptimal. For this we have two unlikely people to thank. The first is Corbyn, who tested to destruction the thesis Ed Miliband only gestured towards, and who proved beyond reasonable doubt that Labour cannot win from the political left." ( the second "unlikely" person he thanks is Boris Johnson for -"(doing) quickly what Labour would have taken an age to do: he dealt with Corbyn. The best thing Johnson ever did was to help to dispose of the most egregious candidate to be prime minister ever fielded by a serious party". |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Oct 16, 2023 8:25:07 GMT
On betting, the bookies will start by using models methods to set the initial odds that will use all available historical information. Subsequent to that, odds will be changed in response to new information, betting patterns (sentiment). Its the last of these that the bookies have access to that we don't, but we see the impact in the odd's being offered.
The odds are just reflecting the information available. If you assume nationally the Tories have a core of 25%, and in seats in its traditional areas that is probably approx 30-35%, then one of the other parties has to get over that to secure victory. Evidence suggest the anti-Tory vote will be split, reducing the probability that either Lab or the LDs will get over that level, allowing the possibility of Tories to come through the middle - that all the bookies are reflecting. Simples! Its not a cast iron guarantee that it will happen, but its looking as if its the most likely of the 4 possible outcomes.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Oct 16, 2023 8:27:48 GMT
There is also the possibility of a conflagration in the Middle East resulting in another oil crisis as per the Seventies. (Which is why we should have been securing our energy all along…) Depends who 'we' are. If you happen to be arich businessman, you may consider this a huge opportunity to make yet more money. Con are of course the party of rich businessmen. So shoule 'we' have beens ecuring our energy, or in fact doing as con have done while in power, which was slow down introduction of renewables and energy saving measures? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,559
|
Post by neilj on Oct 16, 2023 8:29:03 GMT
Worth reposting Kellner's tweet, the most recent 7 polls have shown him to be correct, the average Labour lead is 17.5
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 16, 2023 8:32:07 GMT
Johntel But wouldn't what's being talked about in that paper you cite just be describing how betting markets and odds track opinion polls, not the ability of betting markets to forecast election outcomes in the absence of psephological data? In other words, aren't you putting the horse in front of the cart? Markets reflect the weather, they don't create it. It's really this from pj that I'm taking issue with - "I am somewhat amazed that on a site dedicated to opinion polling on the basis of stratified sampling quite so many people seem to take gambling odds seriously". The paper I quoted concludes that betting markets are more accurate than opinion polls. I'd start a separate thread but I don't think anyone except Trevor would be interested |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 16, 2023 8:32:39 GMT
Quote it, and since psephology is my real thing (not polling) I'll show you why its nonsense. I've spent 40 years studying the subject so I'm more than an average punter - which is why I never bet on elections! Well you could try this for starters: Polls to probabilities: Comparing prediction markets and opinion polls James Read and Leighton Vaughan Williams International Journal of Forecasting Volume 35, Issue 1, January–March 2019, Pages 336-350 Abstract The forecasting of election outcomes is a hugely popular activity, and not without reason: the outcomes can have significant economic impacts, for example on stock prices. As such, it is economically important, as well as of academic interest, to determine the forecasting methods that have historically performed best. However, the forecasts are often incompatible, as some are in terms of vote shares while others are probabilistic outcome forecasts. This paper sets out an empirical method for transforming opinion poll vote shares into probabilistic forecasts, and then evaluates the performances of prediction markets and opinion polls. We make comparisons along two dimensions, bias and precision, and find that converted opinion polls perform well in terms of bias, while prediction markets are good for precision. Vaughan William is Professor of Economics and Finance and Head of Economics Research and Director of the Betting Research Unit and Political Forecasting Unit at Nottingham Business School. I will see if I can track down their argument and respond properly. I will also, when I get the time, do some research into betting odds on various elections compared to the actual outcomes. I am confident that they will mirror the same errors as polls make in 'surprise' outcomes because I reckon that most betting is based on polling anyway. But I'll see if I can prove my hypothesis. If you want an example dear to the heart of our own site - the bookies got Canterbury 2017 wrong, offering long odds against Labour winning it - and so did most people on the old UKPR who mocked Dr Mibbles (I would have been wrong too). He based his prediction on science - the demographic make up of the constituency and what the polls were saying about how various groups would vote - and was proved right. The 'general opinion' that drives betting markets had no way of spotting that, although the big MRP poll also picked it up. 1-0 to Psephology there. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Oct 16, 2023 8:37:16 GMT
Philip Collins's praise of Starmer in The Times today pretty much sums things up. He says that KS's " betray(al) the left-wing pledges on which he ran " is "Learning on the job " Another quote is illustrative of the article :- "Of those current shadow cabinet members who did vote in the 2010 leadership election, Pat McFadden, David Lammy, Bridget Phillipson, Liz Kendall, Jonathan Reynolds, Ian Murray, Alan Campbell and Jenny Chapman backed David Miliband. Rachel Reeves, Shabana Mahmood, Hilary Benn, Lucy Powell and Emily Thornberry voted for Ed. Yvette Cooper (understandably) and John Healey (not so much) voted for Ed Balls. If we add in Ed Miliband, who presumably voted for himself, the 16 MPs who now sit in Starmer’s shadow cabinet were split. Faced with a rather obvious question of political strategy, eight of them got the answer wrong. Time and defeat, however, teach a lesson, and their actions since suggest that Rachel Reeves and Shabana Mahmood, for example, have repented of their sin. Reeves, whose conference performance was her best yet, gave a speech not entirely unlike the one David Miliband would have given had he not lost to his brother. Like Starmer himself, Reeves is smart enough to note the Labour Party’s serial collisions with reality and decide that driving at a brick wall might be suboptimal. For this we have two unlikely people to thank. The first is Corbyn, who tested to destruction the thesis Ed Miliband only gestured towards, and who proved beyond reasonable doubt that Labour cannot win from the political left." ( the second "unlikely" person he thanks is Boris Johnson for -"(doing) quickly what Labour would have taken an age to do: he dealt with Corbyn. The best thing Johnson ever did was to help to dispose of the most egregious candidate to be prime minister ever fielded by a serious party". Indeed. Unprecedented times and the flip from Tory to Labour since Johnson / Truss quite amazing. The Tories in marginal seats must be regretting not sitting out the Covid Party storm with BJ I'd say. Still don't understand why BJ didn't do a John Major "put up or shut up" Leadership election to see the men in grey suits off! Anyway, an own goal of their own making to end with Sunak! |
|
The posters on this site are the equivalent of the average punter on the gee-gees who thinks he has an edge but in reality loses steadily in the long term. In the meantime the professional punters either a) have inside knowledge on a particular event or b) understand how betting markets work and use it to their advantage.
