UK General Election 2029 - Trading ONLY thread

Betfair trading & Punting on politics. Be aware there is a lot of off topic discussion in this group centred on Political views.
Post Reply
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:38 pm
Maybe best asking the Daily Telegraph?

Screenshot 2025-09-07 123658.png
So did he say that? Unfortunately I can't access the DT article other than a quick glimpse before the Account overlay covers the text. So I turned to Google but the only reference by Google was the same DT article that I cannot access. So move to ChatGPT. I asked "did nigel farage say "no dogs, no blacks, no irish"" and this is what it responded ...

"There’s no credible evidence that Nigel Farage himself ever uttered the phrase “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” Instead, these words appear in his statements recounting others’ experiences, not as declarations he made.

What Nigel Farage did say
In March 2015, amid controversy over his suggestion to roll back race-discrimination laws, several outlets quoted him referencing that phrase—but attributing it to the past, not his own words. For example, Sadiq Khan criticized Farage’s stance by saying:

“When my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying ‘no blacks, no dogs, no Irish’; what Ukip is suggesting would take us back to those days.”

Farage did not claim he said that phrase—rather, others invoked it to illustrate how discriminatory signage was supposedly common in the past.

Were such signs historically real?
Many people remember seeing signs stating “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” in post-war Britain. For instance, one Londoner recalled such a handwritten sign in the 1950s, and another immigrant from the 1960s said, “When I went looking for digs it was standard to see signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.”

However, historical verification is weak. A 2015 Guardian article concluded:

“The specific phrase ‘No Irish, no blacks, no dogs’ lacks verifiable historical evidence… the widely circulated photograph… is of uncertain provenance, possibly staged for a 1980s exhibition.”

A 2024 Reuters fact-check confirmed that a famous photo showing that phrasing was altered, and that “there is no evidence to support the claim” that such signs were once common in Britain. Only a single, uncertain photograph exists.

Summary table
Did Farage say "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish"? No — the phrase was used by others referencing historical discrimination, not by Farage himself.

Did such signs exist historically? Possibly anecdotal, but no solid evidence the phrase was widespread. One uncertain photo and numerous personal memories exist, but no archival or parliamentary records confirm it.

Bottom Line
Nigel Farage did not say “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” That phrase was used by others (e.g., Sadiq Khan) to describe discriminatory signs they said existed decades earlier.

While some people recall such signs, historians and fact-checkers have not found robust proof they were common—making the phrase more symbolic of perceived past attitudes than a documented widespread practice."

So there you have it, the only person quoted by ChatGPT as using that phrase publicly is that well known anti-Caucasian racist, Sadiq Khan! :lol:

I guess I should thank you for giving me the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how issues are twisted and prove that if a lie is repeated often enough it is seen as true. Perhaps the only racists here are those that have used the term to dishonestly label Farage!

My apologies for posting this in the Trading only thread but the truth will out.
User avatar
ForFolksSake
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat May 11, 2024 2:51 pm

firlandsfarm wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 2:40 pm
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:38 pm
Maybe best asking the Daily Telegraph?

Screenshot 2025-09-07 123658.png
So did he say that? Unfortunately I can't access the DT article other than a quick glimpse before the Account overlay covers the text. So I turned to Google but the only reference by Google was the same DT article that I cannot access. So move to ChatGPT. I asked "did nigel farage say "no dogs, no blacks, no irish"" and this is what it responded ...

"There’s no credible evidence that Nigel Farage himself ever uttered the phrase “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” Instead, these words appear in his statements recounting others’ experiences, not as declarations he made.

What Nigel Farage did say
In March 2015, amid controversy over his suggestion to roll back race-discrimination laws, several outlets quoted him referencing that phrase—but attributing it to the past, not his own words. For example, Sadiq Khan criticized Farage’s stance by saying:

“When my parents moved to London they frequently saw signs saying ‘no blacks, no dogs, no Irish’; what Ukip is suggesting would take us back to those days.”

Farage did not claim he said that phrase—rather, others invoked it to illustrate how discriminatory signage was supposedly common in the past.

Were such signs historically real?
Many people remember seeing signs stating “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” in post-war Britain. For instance, one Londoner recalled such a handwritten sign in the 1950s, and another immigrant from the 1960s said, “When I went looking for digs it was standard to see signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.”

However, historical verification is weak. A 2015 Guardian article concluded:

“The specific phrase ‘No Irish, no blacks, no dogs’ lacks verifiable historical evidence… the widely circulated photograph… is of uncertain provenance, possibly staged for a 1980s exhibition.”

A 2024 Reuters fact-check confirmed that a famous photo showing that phrasing was altered, and that “there is no evidence to support the claim” that such signs were once common in Britain. Only a single, uncertain photograph exists.

Summary table
Did Farage say "no dogs, no blacks, no Irish"? No — the phrase was used by others referencing historical discrimination, not by Farage himself.

Did such signs exist historically? Possibly anecdotal, but no solid evidence the phrase was widespread. One uncertain photo and numerous personal memories exist, but no archival or parliamentary records confirm it.

Bottom Line
Nigel Farage did not say “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish.” That phrase was used by others (e.g., Sadiq Khan) to describe discriminatory signs they said existed decades earlier.

While some people recall such signs, historians and fact-checkers have not found robust proof they were common—making the phrase more symbolic of perceived past attitudes than a documented widespread practice."

So there you have it, the only person quoted by ChatGPT as using that phrase publicly is that well known anti-Caucasian racist, Sadiq Khan! :lol:

I guess I should thank you for giving me the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how issues are twisted and prove that if a lie is repeated often enough it is seen as true. Perhaps the only racists here are those that have used the term to dishonestly label Farage!

My apologies for posting this in the Trading only thread but the truth will out.
Very well defended may I say 👍 - make Britain Great again 🇬🇧
sionascaig
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am

firlandsfarm wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 2:40 pm

I guess I should thank you for giving me the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how issues are twisted and prove that if a lie is repeated often enough it is seen as true. Perhaps the only racists here are those that have used the term to dishonestly label Farage!
I think you may have just done what you (rightly) seek to avoid - twisted the issue or maybe just misread the headline.

The reference was to British-born workers getting preferential treatment, which in the eyes of The Telegraph journalist amounts to racism.

"Nigel Farage has tried to row back his comments about 'British-born' workers, but don't be fooled. This is open, explicit racism."

Whatever, he seems to have changed tune now and everybody is now welcome to work in the UK according to some "undefined" criteria is met - at least that is what I think he said )

But getting back on thread... what people "think" vs what is "true" will play a big part in this market unfortunately..

PS: excellent bit of research )
User avatar
ForFolksSake
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat May 11, 2024 2:51 pm

UK Politics is getting very 'Advanced' now - who would have thought it

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -be-afraid
tico
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:18 pm

I can never understand why people spread such fearmongering without any evidence of such. When has he ever said those things? It's like when he is accused of being racist ... I ask for quotes of such but never get a response to that. Tico, would you like to have a go?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -companies

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... den-on-nhs

Tico
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 4:24 pm
I think you may have just done what you (rightly) seek to avoid - twisted the issue or maybe just misread the headline.
I don't see how I have fallen into my own trap ... it's a statement of fact that Farage did not say those things and therefore I 'twisted' nothing. And the headline is equally fact!
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 4:24 pm
The reference was to British-born workers getting preferential treatment, which in the eyes of The Telegraph journalist amounts to racism.
Well I guess they are welcome to their opinion no matter how wrong it is! :lol:
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 4:24 pm
"Nigel Farage has tried to row back his comments about 'British-born' workers, but don't be fooled. This is open, explicit racism."
I see nothing racist in being patriotic and if it is then probably at least half the world's population are racist!
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 4:24 pm
But getting back on thread... what people "think" vs what is "true" will play a big part in this market unfortunately..
That's always the case in every market and at the moment Farage has a big following! Ignore it at your peril if trading. As I said previously, the bet is can he hold it all together.

And the good news today was that Liar Lammy will probably stand down as Deputy PM when the new Deputy of the Labour Party is announced.
sionascaig
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am

firlandsfarm wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 9:44 pm
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 4:24 pm
The reference was to British-born workers getting preferential treatment, which in the eyes of The Telegraph journalist amounts to racism.
Well I guess they are welcome to their opinion no matter how wrong it is! :lol:
From the FT:

"The Ukip leader, speaking in a Channel 4 documentary to be aired next week, said the fact an employer could not choose between a Briton and someone from overseas was “ludicrous”.

And Farage's actual words:

“I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word ‘discriminate’ if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so . . . I think you should be able to choose on the basis of nationality, yes, I do.”

Asked whether he would retain a law to protect against race discrimination, he replied: “No"

I seriously have no idea what he does or does not believe in or what he would or would not do if in a position of power.

He is certainly very talented at taking centre stage & running circles round the clowns we have though.
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:00 pm
And Farage's actual words:

“I would argue that the law does need changing, and that if an employer wishes to choose, or you can use the word ‘discriminate’ if you want to, but wishes to choose to employ a British-born person, they should be allowed to do so . . . I think you should be able to choose on the basis of nationality, yes, I do.”
Nice twist! I can see nothing wrong with choice. Perhaps you agree with freedom of choice so long as it is 'the right choice' but remove it if you disagree with that choice! If an employer wishes to choose on nationality then it is the employer who could be accused of being racist, not the person who gave them the freedom of that choice in the same way you can drive at 50mph or more in a built up area but if you do it is you who are breaking the law, not the lawmaker.
sionascaig wrote:
Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:00 pm
I seriously have no idea what he does or does not believe in or what he would or would not do if in a position of power.
I seriously hope you didn't vote for Starmer if so you must be seriously disappointed! :lol:
sionascaig
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am

firlandsfarm wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 7:30 am

I seriously hope you didn't vote for Starmer if so you must be seriously disappointed! :lol:
Fortunately I have better choices in Scotland )

But back to trading...

A surprising number of folk I know intend to vote Reform at next years Scottish elections. They fall into two camps:

1. out & out protest vote but would not vote for Reform (so far) in a general election
2. it is the only option on the right as Tories still dead in the water

Would not be at all surprised if Reform becomes 2nd biggest party in Scotland or at least very close to labour in terms of seats held.

==> And expect the pollsters to get it wrong as many of these Reform voters will not be admitting to it !

But signing off on more cheery news: polls indicate that Farage as PM will push the indie vote to 60% in Scotland - every cloud & all that )
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

sionascaig wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 8:08 am
... A surprising number of folk I know intend to vote Reform at next years Scottish elections. They fall into two camps:

1. out & out protest vote but would not vote for Reform (so far) in a general election ...

... Farage as PM will push the indie vote to 60% in Scotland
I would have thought an 'Indie' Scot would consider the Scottish Election their General Election! :D
sionascaig
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am

firlandsfarm wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 8:44 am

I would have thought an 'Indie' Scot would consider the Scottish Election their General Election! :D
It's largely tactical voting up here for both Scottish & General elections.

You pick a unionist party or an indie one based on who has the best chance of winning locally then hold your nose.

A lot of conservatives are forced to vote labour & not happy about it (& vice versa) to prevent SNP getting in - especially if 1st past the post...

(although it all kinda balances out for the 2nd vote proportional representation stuff - regional seats)

I stay in Morningside Edin where over 40% of kids are privately educated but has had a labour MP for a very long time. Even with the school fees VAT raid they will still vote him in rather than an indie candidate.

Can see tactical voting playing a bigger role down south in the years ahead, especially by the parties worried about Reform.
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

sionascaig wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 9:07 am
Can see tactical voting playing a bigger role down south in the years ahead, especially by the parties worried about Reform.
Yes but hopefully they will have learnt a lesson that tactical voting can get you a landslide election for a really crap Government. It's interesting how all the noise on here that was for Labour has gone silent!
User avatar
ForFolksSake
Posts: 944
Joined: Sat May 11, 2024 2:51 pm

:lol:
sionascaig wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 9:07 am
firlandsfarm wrote:
Mon Sep 08, 2025 8:44 am

I would have thought an 'Indie' Scot would consider the Scottish Election their General Election! :D
It's largely tactical voting up here for both Scottish & General elections.

You pick a unionist party or an indie one based on who has the best chance of winning locally then hold your nose.

A lot of conservatives are forced to vote labour & not happy about it (& vice versa) to prevent SNP getting in - especially if 1st past the post...

(although it all kinda balances out for the 2nd vote proportional representation stuff - regional seats)

I stay in Morningside Edin where over 40% of kids are privately educated but has had a labour MP for a very long time. Even with the school fees VAT raid they will still vote him in rather than an indie candidate.

Can see tactical voting playing a bigger role down south in the years ahead, especially by the parties worried about Reform.
especially by the parties worried about Reform.
The only party that needs to worry about Reform is the Labour Party

Farage is predicting the next election will be in 2027 - that's if Labour last that long
User avatar
firlandsfarm
Posts: 3384
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

There's no market (yet) for Labour's Deputy Leader but the result will probably affect the GE positions. So I asked ChatGPT to get the ball rolling. It returned ...

Here's a comprehensive breakdown of the emerging contenders for the Labour Party Deputy Leadership and how they might influence Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership, along with their key strengths and any potential controversies:

Key Contenders & Their Political Profiles
1. Bridget Phillipson

Status: As Education Secretary, she is the first Cabinet minister to formally enter the race. She brings ministerial clout and credibility.
The Times
Financial Times

Strengths:
Represents the North East, adding regional balance to Labour leadership.

Working-class personal narrative—from single-parent household to Cabinet.

Seen as disciplined and resilient under pressure.
The Times

How she might help Starmer:
Her Cabinet experience and regional roots could bolster party unity and outreach in traditional Labour heartlands.

Potential issues:
Her high-profile status may unsettle backbenchers who might perceive her as too aligned to the leadership.

2. Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Status: First to officially launch her campaign, representing Labour’s left flank.
The Times
Financial Times

Strengths:
Vocal advocate for progressive policies.

Offers ideological diversity—can energise the party’s left-wing base.

How she might help or challenge Starmer:
Could help re-engage grassroots members and union activists.

May push Starmer further left, potentially straining cohesion if he prioritises centrism.

Potential issues:
May struggle to secure the required 80 MP nominations in the face of Party establishment resistance.

3. Lucy Powell
Status: A soft-left figure and “early front-runner”; endorsed by Andy Burnham. Recently ousted from government, giving her a backbench credibility.
The Guardian
Wikipedia
The Times

Strengths:
Deep parliamentary networks and experience (e.g., Deputy Chief of Staff to Ed Miliband).

Geographical balance—based in Manchester, she brings representation from outside London.

How she might help Starmer:
Broad appeal across wings; offers stability and parliamentary savvy.

Her soft-left credentials may help temper tensions with grassroots.

Potential issues:
Her dismissal from government could signal internal disagreements with Starmer’s direction.

4. Emily Thornberry
Status: Considering a run; seen as experienced and somewhat independent.
The Guardian
+1

Strengths:
A long-serving MP (since 2005), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Respected voice with foreign affairs and constitutional gravitas.

How she might help Starmer:
Brings gravitas and oversight credentials, potential for thoughtful internal checks.

Potential issues:
Known for a few high-profile gaffes; proximity to Starmer may limit her independence.
The Times

5. Alison McGovern
Status: New housing minister; described as a moderate, potentially a “compromise” candidate.
The Guardian
Telegraph
The Times

Strengths:
Ministerial experience and less polarising profile.

Could appeal to both centrists and some membership looking for a fresh style.

How she might help Starmer:
Likely to maintain harmony with the PM’s agenda while still offering an independent voice.

Potential issues:
Lacks high public profile — may struggle to energise the broader membership.

6. Rosena Allin-Khan
Status: Frequently mentioned as a left-leaning standard-bearer.
The Guardian
Wikipedia

Strengths:
Medical background and strong voice on health issues.

Respected across party factions, potential unifier.

How she might help Starmer:
Her non-London background and professional credibility bring appeal to moderates and the left.

Potential issues:
Lacking high-profile support currently; nomination threshold may be difficult.

7. Stella Creasy
Status: Has not ruled out a bid; appeals to grassroots and free speech campaigners.
The Guardian
+1

Strengths:
Well-established campaigner with a strong activist base.

Experienced and articulate on democratic reform.

How she might help Starmer:
Could boost engagement and local campaigning energy.

Potential issues:
Less traction among MPs and possibly seen as a more ideological figure.

Summary Table: Contenders at a Glance
Candidate Strengths Starmer Synergy / Risk Potential Skeletons

Bridget Phillipson Cabinet experience, northern roots, resilient Regional balance, seen as unifying May be viewed as leadership-aligned

Bell Ribeiro-Addy Left-wing credibility, grassroots appeal Energise left base, potential ideological pressure May struggle for MP backing

Lucy Powell MP networks, soft-left, Manchester base Parliamentary stabiliser, regional balance Recent sacking could signal internal friction

Emily Thornberry Experience, foreign affairs expertise Offers oversight and gravitas Occasional gaffes; perceived closeness to Starmer

Alison McGovern Moderate, ministerial, compromise candidate Likely to align with PM and preserve cohesion Low public profile

Rosena Allin-Khan Health background, unifying potential Could bridge factions and boost appeal Nomination and profile hurdles

Stella Creasy Grassroots and activist energy, articulate Mobilise membership support Not favored by MPs for nominations

Commentary: How Each Might Shape the Starmer Premiership
Unity vs. Tension: A moderate or Cabinet figure like Phillipson, Powell, Thornberry or McGovern would likely reinforce Starmer’s centrist agenda and support discipline within the party. In contrast, Ribeiro-Addy, Creasy or Allin-Khan may pull the dialogue leftward and challenge him on issues like welfare, Israel–Palestine policy or grassroots democracy.

Regional and Gender Balance: With Starmer’s leadership based in southern England, northern representation via Phillipson, Powell, or Allin-Khan could be politically prudent. Moreover, given Harriet Harman’s remarks that the next deputy “should be a woman,” their candidacies align with gender equity expectations.
Wikipedia
The Guardian

Nomination Threshold Pressures: The requirement for at least 80 MP nominations by Thursday (20% of the PLP) narrows the field and advantages those with strong parliamentary relationships or leadership backing. This may disadvantage grassroots candidates without internal MP support.
The Times
Financial Times
The Guardian

Final Take
The deputy leadership race is now more than a mere position—it's shaping up as a barometer for Labour’s ideological balance in government. Phillipson and Powell appear most poised to meld experience and cohesion, while Ribeiro-Addy and Allin-Khan could amplify internal debates and push policy leftward. Thornberry and McGovern fit comfortably as trusted guardians of moderation, with Creasy adding dynamism from the grassroots.

Sir Keir Starmer may view a moderate, experienced deputy as an asset to safeguard unity and policy delivery—but without alienating the party’s progressive base. The choice will send a message well beyond October 25.
Post Reply

Return to “Political betting & arguing”