Jump to content
dylanisabaddog

Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

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...

When I was at school there was a song we would sing (taking the p155 out of ourselves. A neat self-parodic sentiment I always felt)..."I can't read and I can't write but that don't really matter, cos I come down from King's Lynn town and I can drive a tractor" - will leave you to sing it in the required accent in your mind (and I bet you can substitute other town names). Perhaps, Norfolk is becoming wiser, less inward looking and traditional Conservative support is crumbling. Some areas used to be more marginal (going back a good 50 years at least). Demographic changes perhaps. But the principal issue is 14 years of incompetent government of course.

Interesting times.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want this story to be true:

 

Even during a general election campaign with projections of historic – even unprecedented – results, people cannot always be relied upon to give their full attention.

“We met a guy who said he was going to vote Labour but wouldn’t now because he had just heard that we were taxing condoms,” said Labour’s Karl Turner, who was first voted in as the MP for Hull East in 2010 and is standing for re-election this time.

“I said, ‘condoms?’ ‘Yeah,’ he said: ‘I just heard on that [pointing to the TV] that you are taxing condoms, and I’m not having it. You’re not getting my vote.’ It was Terence [Turner’s parliamentary assistant] here who worked it out.

“‘We’re taxing non-doms, not condoms,’ I said. ‘Oh,’ he said. ‘Like the prime minister’s wife? Ah.’ He calls out: ‘Margaret: they’re taxing non-doms, not condoms.’”

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

Probably get £8001 back if he’s lucky.

I'm sure all his supporters knocking on doors, stuffing envelopes, etc,  will be delighted to share in his winnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Hubby of our esteemed minister for common sense placed an £8,000 bet on losing his seat, allegedly 🤣

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw2lm2mm14o

And friends tell me that on his election literature he states "in your interest, not self-interest"

I kid you not 😄😄🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The betting stuff is starting to get a bit overblown in my opinion.

Staff with insider knowledge placing bets on the election date they day before the announcement is dodgy. MP's placing bets on themselves to lose isn't, unless you think they are throwing the election. It has happened for a long time and is largely harmless- heck Charles Kennedy doing it was framed as light hearted story 30 years ago- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lib-dem-election-loss-is-win-for-party-president-1422868.html

Personally I'd say it would be worthwhile bringing in rules after this election to say 'no betting on it allowed at all' but right now its getting a bit farcical. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, king canary said:

The betting stuff is starting to get a bit overblown in my opinion.

Staff with insider knowledge placing bets on the election date they day before the announcement is dodgy. MP's placing bets on themselves to lose isn't, unless you think they are throwing the election. It has happened for a long time and is largely harmless- heck Charles Kennedy doing it was framed as light hearted story 30 years ago- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lib-dem-election-loss-is-win-for-party-president-1422868.html

Personally I'd say it would be worthwhile bringing in rules after this election to say 'no betting on it allowed at all' but right now its getting a bit farcical. 

It's the lack of integrity and honesty about it that annoys me, rather than the betting. Just read the response to being questioned by the journalist ..."Sir" Philip Davies is hardly apologetic. Instead you get entitlement indicating a questionable moral compass. It's pathetic isn't it. Expect more from people with senior public positions.

As for Davies people have told me he all but gave up the campaign weeks and weeks ago. So his statement in the BBC link again is just lies. I've met the fella and had to take him.on.a tour as part of my work. He is an interesting fella but his views on lots of things are a thing to behold. I haven't met many more arrogant people than him in my entire life.

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's the lack of integrity and honesty about it that annoys me, rather than the betting. Just read the response to being questioned by the journalist ..."Sir" Philip Davies is hardly apologetic. Instead you get entitlement indicating a questionable moral compass. It's pathetic isn't it. Expect more from people with senior public positions.

As for Davies people have told me he all but gave up the campaign weeks and weeks ago. So his statement in the BBC link again is just lies. I've met the fella and had to take him.on.a tour as part of my work. He is an interesting fella but his views on lots of things are a thing to behold. I haven't met many more arrogant people than him in my entire life.

MPs by their nature are unlikely to be shy and retiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

And friends tell me that on his election literature he states "in your interest, not self-interest"

I kid you not 😄😄🤬

Highlights perfectly the problem with such "legal" bets by those with skin in the game. 

A Luton Town footballer would have been entirely rational to think his team would get thrashed by Manchester City. Had one of them sought to make a few quid by betting on such a result, the Luton Town fans would have been entirely rational to see such a bet as a massive breach of trust.

Our legal system in many ways represents the bare minimum standards beyond which society refuses to let people plummet without punishment as a consequence. Our ethical values represent standards that we wish people to aspire to in rising above the bare minimum. If we can't expect those who put themselves forward as candidates to sit in our parliament to aspire to higher ethical values and principles, then we truly are in an awful mess.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Naturalcynic said:

MPs by their nature are unlikely to be shy and retiring.

I've met very many in my former role and I can confidently say that it simply untrue. Most are like any other person with a persona. And that is both Tories and Labour. I've met some very humble MPs too. One of the nicest was John Battle. Another was David Davis (believe it or not) just for balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's the lack of integrity and honesty about it that annoys me, rather than the betting. Just read the response to being questioned by the journalist ..."Sir" Philip Davies is hardly apologetic. Instead you get entitlement indicating a questionable moral compass. It's pathetic isn't it. Expect more from people with senior public positions.

As for Davies people have told me he all but gave up the campaign weeks and weeks ago. So his statement in the BBC link again is just lies. I've met the fella and had to take him.on.a tour as part of my work. He is an interesting fella but his views on lots of things are a thing to behold. I haven't met many more arrogant people than him in my entire life.

The editor of the Yorkshire Post, James Mitchison, is absolutely scathing about him. Clearly not a fan of his work. 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I've met very many in my former role and I can confidently say that it simply untrue. Most are like any other person with a persona. And that is both Tories and Labour. I've met some very humble MPs too. One of the nicest was John Battle. Another was David Davis (believe it or not) just for balance.

I also met John Battle, about 25 years ago.  Pleasant chap, as was George Robertson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Herman said:

The editor of the Yorkshire Post, James Mitchison, is absolutely scathing about him. Clearly not a fan of his work. 😁

The Yorkshire Post 'turned' years ago. Just before Brexit and then very scathing after (it ran a Brexit sunlit uplands thread with a great deal of unadulterated and barefaced cynicism). They hate this government (the pandemic was another focus for the editorials). To be honest, for me, they've been championing the right ideas for a while. I'm pleased to read about their views on Davies. Mrs S dislikes the fella more than anyone ..."despicable beast"  is her term. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

I also met John Battle, about 25 years ago.  Pleasant chap, as was George Robertson.

He was yes. Kind, committed and reasonable. Never met Robertson. Sometimes (well, often).when you meet people eye to eye you see a far more different person than you imagined or had a fixed opinion about. It was David Davis for me (so much so that my wife used to joke "there's your mate" when he appeared on TV knowing that I was not a natural Tory supporter). He was open, self-critical and thoughtful. Shapps on the other hand was clearly into himself and had some other things on his mind. You could tell he was acting a part and did not inhabit his role wholly. Battle certainly did.

A lesson for us all I always think on the forum. We think we know folk from their writing but written communication is often misleading. You don't see the whites of the eyes and all those other important signals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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

Screenshot_20240627_080551_Chrome.thumb.jpg.61dd020aff277bc1f45279f2f508be8e.jpg

 

Today’s Odds Norfolk South 


Labour 1/5 

Tories 7/2 

Reform 14/1 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

 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.

I think that's called 'wishful thinking'.

 

Probably wise to remember that what we want and who we support are two different things.   Just because we support someone doesn't mean that they will try to do what we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's the lack of integrity and honesty about it that annoys me, rather than the betting.

That’s clearly true, but for me there is also the massive lack of judgement. These are supposed to be rational people in the public eye who take a cool-headed view of what is best for constituency and party, using all relevant factors (obviously filtered through their political values). Did they not stop and think how it would look? Any idiot should have thought “this isn’t going to portray me in the best light”. It’s incompetent and as you say, suggests a huge sense of entitlement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I think that's called 'wishful thinking'.

That may be true although what @sonyc suggests seems very likely to me, not because we wish for it but because its very obvious that it is what many Labour MPs (& members) want.

Starmer has certainly suceeded (too well for my liking 😀 ) in maintaining strict party discipline running up to the election, but if, as expected, Labour end up with 400ish MPs then all sorts of things change - as Johnson found, as other PMs before him have, it is much easier to maintain party discipline with a very small majority than it is with a very big one.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

He was yes. Kind, committed and reasonable. Never met Robertson. Sometimes (well, often).when you meet people eye to eye you see a far more different person than you imagined or had a fixed opinion about. It was David Davis for me (so much so that my wife used to joke "there's your mate" when he appeared on TV knowing that I was not a natural Tory supporter). He was open, self-critical and thoughtful. Shapps on the other hand was clearly into himself and had some other things on his mind. You could tell he was acting a part and did not inhabit his role wholly. Battle certainly did.

A lesson for us all I always think on the forum. We think we know folk from their writing but written communication is often misleading. You don't see the whites of the eyes and all those other important signals.

That reminds me of one when on an old boxing forum that no longer exists, I most inadvertently started a serious ****storm by saying that "on an online forum, we're essentially all autistic". The point is that many on the spectrum can have some problems with non-verbal communication, prosody, reading facial expressions (or even eye contact) etc. and that when just reading comments, it's easier to miss nuance.

Luckily the mod team knew exactly where I was coming from and agreed, but several spectacularly overreacted to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I really want this story to be true:

 

Even during a general election campaign with projections of historic – even unprecedented – results, people cannot always be relied upon to give their full attention.

“We met a guy who said he was going to vote Labour but wouldn’t now because he had just heard that we were taxing condoms,” said Labour’s Karl Turner, who was first voted in as the MP for Hull East in 2010 and is standing for re-election this time.

“I said, ‘condoms?’ ‘Yeah,’ he said: ‘I just heard on that [pointing to the TV] that you are taxing condoms, and I’m not having it. You’re not getting my vote.’ It was Terence [Turner’s parliamentary assistant] here who worked it out.

“‘We’re taxing non-doms, not condoms,’ I said. ‘Oh,’ he said. ‘Like the prime minister’s wife? Ah.’ He calls out: ‘Margaret: they’re taxing non-doms, not condoms.’”

This one is true.

I stood behind 2 ladies in the queue in the coop this week and overheard one say (in relation to the betting scandal) that the Tories are dishonest and after what they did to Boris she's going to vote for Nigel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It seems to me last nights debate was not really about Labour - Tory. That's already baked in. 

It was really about Sunak shoring up his vote from Reform.

Also interested to hear that Reform's 'vote' seems to be dwindling again - Farage's 'Trumpism' vs Putin comments may have done for him. I hope so.

Edited by Yellow Fever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

The betting stuff is starting to get a bit overblown in my opinion.

Staff with insider knowledge placing bets on the election date they day before the announcement is dodgy. MP's placing bets on themselves to lose isn't, unless you think they are throwing the election. It has happened for a long time and is largely harmless- heck Charles Kennedy doing it was framed as light hearted story 30 years ago- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/lib-dem-election-loss-is-win-for-party-president-1422868.html

Personally I'd say it would be worthwhile bringing in rules after this election to say 'no betting on it allowed at all' but right now its getting a bit farcical. 

Just an example- this is an absolute nothing story but it'll get traction as it is the issue of the day- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/27/tory-business-minister-kevin-hollinrake-bet-conservatives-winning-election

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It seems to me last nights debate was not really about Labour - Tory. That's already baked in. 

It was really about Sunak shoring up his vote from Reform.

That was pretty much my take too.   Sunak was playing primarily to the potential reform voter, albeit in the hope of swinging the 10% or so that are Labour by default.

I thought this was a win for sunak, but it was like scoring a drop goal in the 79th minute when what you really need is a converted try.   It gets talked about and improves the look of the scoreboard but really it's  a missed opportunity. 

Starmer was second best for most of the match, but he did the things he really needed to do, he didn't drop the ball and didn't allow sunak all off the room he really needed to change the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Just an example- this is an absolute nothing story but it'll get traction as it is the issue of the day- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/27/tory-business-minister-kevin-hollinrake-bet-conservatives-winning-election

Even at 9 to 1 that's a terrible piece of business from the Business Minister.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

That was pretty much my take too.   Sunak was playing primarily to the potential reform voter, albeit in the hope of swinging the 10% or so that are Labour by default.

I thought this was a win for sunak, but it was like scoring a drop goal in the 79th minute when what you really need is a converted try.   It gets talked about and improves the look of the scoreboard but really it's  a missed opportunity. 

Starmer was second best for most of the match, but he did the things he really needed to do, he didn't drop the ball and didn't allow sunak all off the room he really needed to change the result.

The snap poll was 50/50 I think. On economics and generally SKS won it.

However, that doesn't matter - people see what they want to see (see the link below). Very clearly as you imply  Sunak failed to damage SKS at all which is what he needed to do to have any hope of knocking Labour off its perch.

Frankly, barring some totally unexpected Labour catastrophe or total voter complacency it's all over. The interest now is how many or few seats the Tories or Reform will return and who will be the new leader in the wilderness. Libdems for official Opposition? What will the DM do.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49857-general-election-2024-bbc-debate-snap-poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Tories are still trying this weird tactic of targeting Angela Rayner specifically as if she's some despised figure, rather than an averagely popular one. Seems a touch misogynistic.

Add in the fact their latest attack video is criticising her for being...anti fire & rehire and pro workers rights? Who do they think is so pro these things that it would be a vote winner?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

The snap poll was 50/50 I think. On economics and generally SKS won it.

However, that doesn't matter - people see what they want to see (see the link below). Very clearly as you imply  Sunak failed to damage SKS at all which is what he needed to do to have any hope of knocking Labour off its perch.

Frankly, barring some totally unexpected Labour catastrophe or total voter complacency it's all over. The interest now is how many or few seats the Tories or Reform will return and who will be the new leader in the wilderness. Libdems for official Opposition? What will the DM do.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49857-general-election-2024-bbc-debate-snap-poll

I think the debate format isn't Starmer's strong point but I don't think it is a major factor in how people view them. In a closer election it might have made a difference.

Someone else also made a point that a not insignificant number of votes will already have been cast before the debate so its chances of moving the needle are minimal at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

I see the Tories are still trying this weird tactic of targeting Angela Rayner specifically as if she's some despised figure, rather than an averagely popular one. Seems a touch misogynistic.

Add in the fact their latest attack video is criticising her for being...anti fire & rehire and pro workers rights? Who do they think is so pro these things that it would be a vote winner?? 

They are hoping it's the Tory party - but I think they'll just be fired and no rehire! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, king canary said:

 

Someone else also made a point that a not insignificant number of votes will already have been cast before the debate so its chances of moving the needle are minimal at best.

But were those already cast votes ever up for grabs? 

Most of us are unimportant in elections. The trick is to appeal to those who either have no strong opinions or are genuinely on the fence and those people are disproportionately not the sort that have a postal vote already cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...