Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

3 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'd be very happy with that, Tories in third and the two party stranglehold finally broken - although I'd still be worried whether this was going to be a single Parliament phenomenon or whether we would have managed to permanently bin our toxic two party system.

I'll just say that a two-party model is usually the endgame of FPTP. I agree that our model is so far out of date that it's become rancid (Hell, myself and Birdie have argued long and hard to this effect for ages), but just pointing out that the notion of there just being two parties is the symptom, not the disease.

[dylanisabaddog 5,823]

6 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'd be very happy with that, Tories in third and the two party stranglehold finally broken - although I'd still be worried whether this was going to be a single Parliament phenomenon or whether we would have managed to permanently bin our toxic two party system.

I wouldn't have believed this 2 days ago but I've been canvassing in South Norfolk and the response I've received suggests that result may be possible. 

If Starmer has any sense at all he will look to form an alliance with the Lib Dems which could change the face of politics in this country for a long time. 

[horsefly 5,176]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Of course people would have labelled him a hypocrite, but that’s because of his pronouncement that any Labour candidate in similar circumstances would be out before their feet touched the ground.  He made a rod for his own back and had to act, even though the bloke had done nothing wrong.  Sacrificed to make Starmer look strong and decisive.

So, that's how bad it's got for you Tories. You consider Starmer's very decisive and clear principle that his party should abide by strong ethical values (as demonstrated in Rotherham and here) as a "rod for his own back". Well, it certainly couldn't be clearer that that's how those in this degenerate Tory government see ethical principles. Thanks for stating that so clearly.

[Creative Midfielder 2,189]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I'll just say that a two-party model is usually the endgame of FPTP. I agree that our model is so far out of date that it's become rancid (Hell, myself and Birdie have argued long and hard to this effect for ages), but just pointing out that the notion of there just being two parties is the symptom, not the disease.

Completely agree, but it seems clear that whilst ever the two parties have a stranglehold they have absolutely no interest in reforming FPTP or indeed of other aspects of our electoral system and clearly Labour with a massive majority is still unlikely to do so - perhaps I'm being over optimisitic but I think in the slightly longer term reform is far more likely if that prediction turns out to be correct.

 

[horsefly 5,176]

49 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The opinion poll that the Tories have been dreading 

A result anything close to this could very well see a demise of the Tory Party similar to that suffered by the Liberal Party in the interwar period last century. The party would likely split into the far-right (who would join up with Reform) and a rump of traditional one nation Tories forever the natural 3rd party in parliament. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,592]

Those Tories who cleaned up on the election date might be tempted by odds of 239/1 on a Conservative majority. Must be worth a few quid from the winnings surely. 

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So, that's how bad it's got for you Tories. You consider Starmer's very decisive and clear principle that his party should abide by strong ethical values (as demonstrated in Rotherham and here) as a "rod for his own back". Well, it certainly couldn't be clearer that that's how those in this degenerate Tory government see ethical principles. Thanks for stating that so clearly.

Let's face it, Boris Johnson thinks ethics is a county.

[Naturalcynic 817]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

So basically you are saying he would have been wrong with whatever action he took. Cheers. 👍

That’s how politics works.  You’re welcome.

[Naturalcynic 817]

30 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So, that's how bad it's got for you Tories. You consider Starmer's very decisive and clear principle that his party should abide by strong ethical values (as demonstrated in Rotherham and here) as a "rod for his own back". Well, it certainly couldn't be clearer that that's how those in this degenerate Tory government see ethical principles. Thanks for stating that so clearly.

Enlighten me on what the Labour candidate did that was wrong.  As far as I’m aware, betting against yourself with no insider knowledge and no ulterior motive is perfectly above board. 

[horsefly 5,176]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

Enlighten me on what the Labour candidate did that was wrong.  As far as I’m aware, betting against yourself with no insider knowledge and no ulterior motive is perfectly above board. 

Read my original comment. I explained it very clearly there. 

[Naturalcynic 817]

48 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I'd be very happy with that, Tories in third and the two party stranglehold finally broken - although I'd still be worried whether this was going to be a single Parliament phenomenon or whether we would have managed to permanently bin our toxic two party system.

As opposed to the imminent toxic one party system.

[Midlands Yellow 4,592]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The opinion poll that the Tories have been dreading 

Bookies have Libs winning around 60 seats. If anyone thinks they’ll get above 66 you can take the 9/2 on offer. Tories are 6/4 to win 100 seats or more. It’s going to comedy gold next week watching the results come in.

You can bet on any individual seat by the way so money to be made if you’ve done some homework. 
 

 

Edited June 27 by Midlands Yellow

[Naturalcynic 817]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Read my original comment. I explained it very clearly there. 

It’s a 62 page thread, and I’m certainly not trawling through all of those in an attempt to find the comment you refer to.

[horsefly 5,176]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

It’s a 62 page thread, and I’m certainly not trawling through all of those in an attempt to find the comment you refer to.

Clearly I meant the original comment in response to your post. Jeez!

[Naturalcynic 817]

Just now, horsefly said:

Clearly I meant the original comment in response to your post. Jeez!

In which you explain absolutely nothing, oh superior one.

[horsefly 5,176]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

In which you explain absolutely nothing, oh superior one.

OK! Since you lack the intelligence, let me make it fool proof. A candidate backing himself to lose raises suspicions that he is not going to campaign to win. Just like a football player betting on his team to lose raises suspicions that he will play poorly to ensure a win for the opposition. Is that simple enough for you, oh dumb one?

[A Load of Squit 6,066]

8 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Should add to that support for people who are a bit chippy that their reputation is still only 865 after so many years...

(Watch your likes pile up now I've said that; you're welcome 😉 )

Edit: Now that will have created a dilemma for them. Do they all pile on the likes for you to undermine my original comment, or do they not pile on the likes in case I've manipulated them into liking more of your posts? Tricky...

This is like two bald men arguing about who owns the comb.

[Naturalcynic 817]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

OK! Since you lack the intelligence, let me make it fool proof. A candidate backing himself to lose raises suspicions that he is not going to campaign to win. Just like a football player betting on his team to lose raises suspicions that he will play poorly to ensure a win for the opposition. Is that simple enough for you, oh dumb one?

No, it’s not the same at all, unless you have evidence that he was “playing poorly” and actively seeking to undermine his own support. Had the clear and obvious betting with insider knowledge by some Tories and others not happened then I doubt very much that the Labour MP betting would have come to light or that Starmer would have done anything about it even if it had.

But many thanks for spelling out your opinion.  Not all of us have the same level of intellect as you and you must find it terribly frustrating at times having to converse with those of us who are a bit dim.  I admire your restraint and fully understand why on rare occasions you reach the end of your tether and, quite rightly, give us a withering put-down.  I’m sure your students flourished with that approach and simply loved going to your lectures and seminars.

[dylanisabaddog 5,823]

27 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Bookies have Libs winning around 60 seats. If anyone thinks they’ll get above 66 you can take the 9/2 on offer. Tories are 6/4 to win 100 seats or more. It’s going to comedy gold next week watching the results come in.

You can bet on any individual seat by the way so money to be made if you’ve done some homework. 
 

 

South Norfolk hasn't had a Labour MP for 80 years. These are the latest odds. Quite extraordinary 

 

[Yellow Fever 4,338]

The Labour guy will not have broken any laws - no 'insider' knowledge of the future.

The Tories almost certainly did.

However, as in football matches, players should not bet on the results of game in which they play! 

We I think can all see the Labour guy's bet on himself to loose was not an attempt to cheat but a piece of fun / theatre. Nevertheless is sets a poor example / slippery slope and SKS was entirely right to act as he did.

[horsefly 5,176]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

No, it’s not the same at all, unless you have evidence that he was “playing poorly” and actively seeking to undermine his own support. Had the clear and obvious betting with insider knowledge by some Tories and others not happened then I doubt very much that the Labour MP betting would have come to light or that Starmer would have done anything about it even if it had.

But many thanks for spelling out your opinion.  Not all of us have the same level of intellect as you and you must find it terribly frustrating at times having to converse with those of us who are a bit dim.  I admire your restraint and fully understand why on rare occasions you reach the end of your tether and, quite rightly, give us a withering put-down.  I’m sure your students flourished with that approach and simply loved going to your lectures and seminars.

Utter tripe, as usual. There is a reason why ALL betting is banned for footballers; it is because of the SUSPICION it raises that the player concerned is involved in fixing a result. Subsequent punishment for betting DOES NOT depend on demonstrating that a player played poorly. You are COMPLETELY wrong on this point.

Thanks for recognising just how frustrating it is dealing with intellectually challenged people like you. Luckily students who actually make it into university don't suffer from your kind of intellectual shortfalls. In case you haven't noticed this is a plain old social media forum, not an educational establishment. One of the joys of that is that you get to speak freely, including showing no tolerance of buffoons.

[Naturalcynic 817]

Just now, horsefly said:

Utter tripe, as usual. There is a reason why ALL betting is banned for footballers; it is because of the SUSPICION it raises that the player concerned is involved in fixing a result. Subsequent punishment for betting DOES NOT depend on demonstrating that a player played poorly. You are COMPLETELY wrong on this point.

Thanks for recognising just how frustrating it is dealing with intellectually challenged people like you. Luckily students who actually make it into university don't suffer from your kind of intellectual shortfalls. In case you haven't noticed this is a plain old social media forum, not an educational establishment. One of the joys of that is that you get to speak freely, including showing no tolerance of buffoons.

We’re discussing voting in a general election, not a footballer deliberately getting booked in the 75th minute.  The two are not comparable.

As for university, I suppose I must have slipped through the net (twice) and I must have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Royal College of Surgeons when they awarded me a membership and fellowship.  Oh well.

[horsefly 5,176]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

We’re discussing voting in a general election, not a footballer deliberately getting booked in the 75th minute.  The two are not comparable.

As for university, I suppose I must have slipped through the net (twice) and I must have pulled the wool over the eyes of the Royal College of Surgeons when they awarded me a membership and fellowship.  Oh well.

It's called an analogy, bozo. The analogy is absolutely appropriate.

Shows just how bad things have got. No wonder there has been a massive increase in medical negligence claims.

[PurpleCanary 6,217]

Very interesting piece in The Guardian today about how there has been in effect a massive deal between Labour and the LibDems on tactical voting.

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Very interesting piece in The Guardian today about how there has been in effect a massive deal between Labour and the LibDems on tactical voting.

And it's even more telling when considering that Reform and the Tories are trying to tear chunks out of each other. I still strongly suspect that the Tories won't do anywhere near as bad as two-digit seats as probable Reform voters head back to the Tories as for them, Labour would be even worse, and this will get some seats back in the Tory fold.

But I've been wrong before though, and polling is hard work in this current climate.

Edited June 27 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 4,338]

47 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Bookies have Libs winning around 60 seats. If anyone thinks they’ll get above 66 you can take the 9/2 on offer. Tories are 6/4 to win 100 seats or more. It’s going to comedy gold next week watching the results come in.

You can bet on any individual seat by the way so money to be made if you’ve done some homework. 
 

 

I wonder if the Tories (or what's little left of them) will suddenly be in favour of PR as opposed to FPTP if it suddenly doesn't favour them and they aren't even the official opposition!

Come on down Ed Davey (and don't fall over or slip on the way) !

[TheGunnShow 7,126]

53 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Bookies have Libs winning around 60 seats. If anyone thinks they’ll get above 66 you can take the 9/2 on offer. Tories are 6/4 to win 100 seats or more. It’s going to comedy gold next week watching the results come in.

You can bet on any individual seat by the way so money to be made if you’ve done some homework. 
 

 

I'm not a betting man, but you might like to see what the odds are of all of Greater Manchester not having a Tory seat. Possibly riskier, but also the odds of ALL of Greater Manchester being Labour.

(There's part of me thinking a couple of the south-eastern seats like Hazel Grove might be Lib Dem...)

[horsefly 5,176]

 

12 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Very interesting piece in The Guardian today about how there has been in effect a massive deal between Labour and the LibDems on tactical voting.

 

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

And it's even more telling when considering that Reform and the Tories are trying to tear chunks out of each other. I still strongly suspect that the Tories won't do anywhere near as bad as two-digit seats as probable Reform voters head back to the Tories as for them, Labour would be even worse, and this will get some seats back in the Tory fold.

But I've been wrong before though, and polling is hard work in this current climate.

 

7 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I wonder if the Tories (or what's little left of them) will suddenly be in favour of PR as opposed to FPTP if it suddenly doesn't favour them and they aren't even the official opposition!

Come on down Ed Davey (and don't fall over or slip on the way) !

It's a particularly interesting feature of this election that this is the first one where people have effectively expressed dissatisfaction with FPTP by taking matters into their own hand and arranged a genuine opportunity to vote tactically. 

[sonyc 6,105]

23 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Very interesting piece in The Guardian today about how there has been in effect a massive deal between Labour and the LibDems on tactical voting.

I've suspected this for a good while. There were a few stories making the link a few weeks ago. If the LDs end up as the main opposition it could lead to a very interesting 5 year period ahead with a Labour government more encouraged to be progressive with the parliamentary support, even on top of the projected majority. It could open the door to discussion about moving away from FPTP, discussions on ways to approach the Brexit disaster,  funding of social care and so on.

Ed Davey is mindful of the sensitive nature of Europe (on TV now) and the need to rebuild trust.

I'm looking forward to the morning of the 5th and seeing seats turn red and orange!

Edited June 27 by sonyc

[PurpleCanary 6,217]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

I've suspected this for a good while. There were a few stories making the link. If the LDs end up as the main opposition it could lead to a very interesting 5 year period ahead with a Labour government more encouraged to be progressive with the parliamentary support, even on top of the projected majority. It could open the door to discussion about moving away from FPTP, discussions on ways to approach the Brexit disaster,  funding of social care and so on.

Ed Davey is mindful of the sensitive nature of Europe (on TV now) and the need to rebuild trust.

I'm looking forward to the morning of the 5th and seeing seats turn red and orange!

There was one poll recently which based on the resuts, had every seat (or ir may have been all but one) in Norfolk going red! I doubt that...