Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The betting money goes on Biden to be re-elected – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 15 in General
imageThe betting money goes on Biden to be re-elected – politicalbetting.com

We have not shown this charm for a few weeks but it represents what is going on and what will be the biggest market of all in the next couple of years. The big mover upwards is 80 year old Biden while Florida governor DeSantis is on the decline.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    First like Biden!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    'We've not shown this charm for a few weeks' is a great typo!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    Does Big Joe have the Big Mo?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682

    Does Big Joe have the Big Mo?

    And has little Ron got it all wrong?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    Rep. George Santos requested a spot on the House Financial Services Committee, per source. He’s not going to get it.

    “No,” McCarthy told me this AM when asked if Santos would sit on any of the key committees of Congress.
    It’s unclear if Santos will get lower-profile committees https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1613227198583869447/video/1
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    Correction: George Santos for POTUS, MTG for VP.
  • If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    Lol!

    You'd think there is no ticket extreme enough for the rabid right in the USA these days, but maybe, just maybe, MTG and GS would do it for them.

    I reckon they'd get 40% of the vote minimum.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,662

    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.

    Leading to the obvious question - who's resident in Indiana that he wants on the ticket with him? ;)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    Lennon said:

    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.

    Leading to the obvious question - who's resident in Indiana that he wants on the ticket with him? ;)
    Jones?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Perfect US House committee assignment for George Santos = Ethics.

    FPT - [re Leaders of Nassau Co. GOP calling for GS to resign from Congress]

    Leaders of Nassau County Republican Party being long renowned for their superlative ethical standards - NOT!

    Among their leading lights and standard bearers (in more ways than one) is former US Rep. Peter King (R-West Belfast) long a favorite with PBers.

    IF Nassau Co GOP thinks you're conduct is unbecoming, THEN you're in serious moral as well as political jeopardy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    Trump is back in juicy lay territory.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145

    Lennon said:

    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.

    Leading to the obvious question - who's resident in Indiana that he wants on the ticket with him? ;)
    Jones?
    Buttigieg-Pence

    The ultimate "bring the country together ticket"
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Lennon said:

    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.

    Leading to the obvious question - who's resident in Indiana that he wants on the ticket with him? ;)
    Janet Jackson? Former resident who could easily re-establish legal residency!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    Gotta take a gamble sometimes. He's old, and that comes with increased risks even in the grand old USA and its fit young 80 somethings, but he had a good midterms and so is riding high right now.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    kinabalu said:

    Trump is back in juicy lay territory.

    I'd have a slice of Sleepy Joe with that, except for the time-value-of-money point.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    Good news is that a Trump-Gaetz OR Santos-Gaetz ticket is unconstitutional.

    Talk about the foresight of Our Founding Fathers!
  • kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    Nope.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145

    Lennon said:

    Speaking of US Secretary of Transportation, note that he's transported himself out of Indiana (means & route unknown) and is now a legal resident of the State of Michigan.

    Meaning among other things, that a Buttigieg-Whitmer ticket (or visa-versa) is NOT possible for 2024.

    Leading to the obvious question - who's resident in Indiana that he wants on the ticket with him? ;)
    Jones?
    Buttigieg-Pence

    The ultimate "bring the country together ticket"
    I would pay money to see that happen. Heads exploding everywhere......
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    Don't give them ideas.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    I'd vote for a Marjorie Doors/Bob Mortimer/Vic Reeves dream ticket against Biden.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082

    kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    Nope.
    Well, you COULD use Matt Gaetz's hair to grease your fancy sports car indefinitely.

    Talk about extended warranty!
  • kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    He's ideal. Has the sort of face you'd like to punch.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,765
    FPT:
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Phil said:

    Well done, Trans activists:

    Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?

    In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.

    And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?

    You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.

    Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
    Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.

    There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.

    All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.

    So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
    My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
    Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
    I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
    Removing rights from 0.04% of the population because they are only a tiny part of the population is highly immoral.
    Which rights are there proposals to remove?

    If anything the Scottish government is proposing a substantial increase in the rights of people who are trans and purport to be trans

    Advancing the rights of 0.04% of the population (which is what is being proposed) potentially at the expense of 50%+ of the population is highly immoral. But there is to be "no debate". I wonder why?
    Exactly lots of blatant lying about needing rights etc when they hav esame rights as anyone else , no-one can come up with any justification for trashing rights of 50% of teh population just because 0.04% imagine they need more rights than anyone else.
    A lot of it is to do with language.

    Replace "Trans Women" with "Men who think they are women" and see how the argument sounds;

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's changing rooms

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should compete in women's sports

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's rape shelters.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Tanks A Lot....

    Mind you the guy who runs the business of that name has had a restoration project looking for a home for a long, long time.... Back when I met him....

    https://tanks-alot.co.uk/product/challenger-1-lockdown-opportunity/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    I was sceptical at the beginning of his term that he’d run again, but he’s been a value bet for a while - though the real value was laying Trump last year.

    And it’s not daft to have a little cash on really long odds alternatives as cover.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,268
    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Aren't they going to need separate everything including ammo?

    When Ukraine wins, they might end up on plinths in small towns. Not likely to make the same contribution as the Leopards.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Aren't they going to need separate everything including ammo?

    When Ukraine wins, they might end up on plinths in small towns. Not likely to make the same contribution as the Leopards.
    Ours are effectively a political gesture - and none the worse for that - though Ukraine has shown itself fairly adept at using multiple different weapon systems.
    They might be used in a particular locale to reduce supply chain complications.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    He's ideal. Has the sort of face you'd like to punch.
    I believe the official Twittername is Rapey McForehead.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Aren't they going to need separate everything including ammo?

    When Ukraine wins, they might end up on plinths in small towns. Not likely to make the same contribution as the Leopards.
    Yes. Logistically, providing a handful of tanks that require unique ammunition is a nightmare, but if Germany and the US are more comfortable not being the first countries to provide tanks then worth it for that reason alone.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    I'd vote for a Marjorie Doors/Bob Mortimer/Vic Reeves dream ticket against Biden.
    UVAVU!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Aren't they going to need separate everything including ammo?

    When Ukraine wins, they might end up on plinths in small towns. Not likely to make the same contribution as the Leopards.
    Ours are effectively a political gesture - and none the worse for that - though Ukraine has shown itself fairly adept at using multiple different weapon systems.
    They might be used in a particular locale to reduce supply chain complications.
    Pretty sure they will all end up being used in the same unit. I guess there's a risk of them all being destroyed/captured in one go, which would be embarrassing, but nothing else makes any sense.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    Nigelb said:

    I was sceptical at the beginning of his term that he’d run again, but he’s been a value bet for a while - though the real value was laying Trump last year.

    And it’s not daft to have a little cash on really long odds alternatives as cover.

    Just learned from twitter that you can tell from biden's earlobes that he has been replaced by a ringer. One more thing to worry about.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486

    kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    Good news is that a Trump-Gaetz OR Santos-Gaetz ticket is unconstitutional.

    Talk about the foresight of Our Founding Fathers!
    Why is it unconstitutional?

    (Assume you mean DeSantis ?)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    I wouldn’t be surprised to see Biden bow out, at some point during this year. The continuing self-destruction of the Republicans make this more rather than less likely.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,673
    Just 2 local by-elections tomorrow: both in Plymouth and both Con defences. I expect at least one change.
  • FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Phil said:

    Well done, Trans activists:

    Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?

    In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.

    And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?

    You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.

    Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
    Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.

    There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.

    All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.

    So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
    My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
    Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
    I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
    Removing rights from 0.04% of the population because they are only a tiny part of the population is highly immoral.
    Which rights are there proposals to remove?

    If anything the Scottish government is proposing a substantial increase in the rights of people who are trans and purport to be trans

    Advancing the rights of 0.04% of the population (which is what is being proposed) potentially at the expense of 50%+ of the population is highly immoral. But there is to be "no debate". I wonder why?
    Exactly lots of blatant lying about needing rights etc when they hav esame rights as anyone else , no-one can come up with any justification for trashing rights of 50% of teh population just because 0.04% imagine they need more rights than anyone else.
    A lot of it is to do with language.

    Replace "Trans Women" with "Men who think they are women" and see how the argument sounds;

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's changing rooms

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should compete in women's sports

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's rape shelters.
    Presumably, you would support the opposite of this, i.e.

    Trans Men or, in your terms, "women who think they are men", and
    have big muscles, and
    have big beards, and
    are pumped full of testosterone, and
    are attracted to women,
    should use women's changing rooms?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    I prefer the original US system - the winner of the election becomes President, the runner up, Vice-President. Can't imagine why they got rid of that one so quickly.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345

    Nigelb said:

    I was sceptical at the beginning of his term that he’d run again, but he’s been a value bet for a while - though the real value was laying Trump last year.

    And it’s not daft to have a little cash on really long odds alternatives as cover.

    Just learned from twitter that you can tell from biden's earlobes that he has been replaced by a ringer. One more thing to worry about.
    Lizard or Alien?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 11
    Biden currently has a 44% approval rating, which while higher than Trump's certainly does not guarantee he would be re elected. Though Trump winning the GOP nomination again would help him, as would replacing Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee as it is rumoured he might

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    dixiedean said:

    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.

    Other Things Being Equal.

    He is 80, making him a 1 in 6 shot for dementia just on grounds of age. That's before we get to the point that he has a dementia look and feel about him, and there's 2 years to go. And when he hits 82 he'll be a 7% chance of dying of something in the next year. And however he looks at 82, will just be a baseline for how he is likely to look at 86.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    dixiedean said:

    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.

    Other Things Being Equal.

    He is 80, making him a 1 in 6 shot for dementia just on grounds of age. That's before we get to the point that he has a dementia look and feel about him, and there's 2 years to go. And when he hits 82 he'll be a 7% chance of dying of something in the next year. And however he looks at 82, will just be a baseline for how he is likely to look at 86.
    I hope he does run and win, an 86 year old President would be quite the thing to see. Just as many people expect(ed) him to stand down in his first term, the assumption he would do so partway through a second term would be huge.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 11
    HYUFD said:

    Biden currently has a 44% approval rating, which while higher than Trump's certainly does not guarantee he would be re elected. Though Trump winning the GOP nomination again would help him, as would replacing Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee as it is rumoured he might

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

    Indeed only Trump, Reagan and Ford had lower approval ratings at this stage of their Presidencies in the last 70 years than Biden and 2/3 of those were not re elected
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 38,072

    FPT:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Driver said:

    Phil said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Phil said:

    Well done, Trans activists:

    Should transgender people be able to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate?

    In 2016, a majority of each age group supported this; in 2021 (with a slight change in question wording) a minority did. The sharpest fall in support was from older people.

    And the drumbeat of anti-trans pieces in the Times, the Telegraph, the Mail and elsewhere have absolutely nothing to do with this then?

    You manage to tell us about a new article in the press on a practically daily basis CV. I note a singular lack of articles written by actual trans people, whether they’re the “trans activists” you’re so keen to decry or the silent majority of trans people you think hold a less activist position.

    Why do they not to print articles in the mainstream press every other day?
    Debbie Hayton, a trans person (male to female) regularly writes in the mainstream press. Robin White, a male to female barrister, was on Politics Live yesterday morning. Rowan Moore, father of a trans child, wrote a long and interesting article in Prospect a few months back. There are others - including some who have transitioned and then detransitioned or the wives of men who have transitioned. There was one such couple who had a big piece in the Sunday Times recently, for instance.

    There is plenty more on other more technical aspects eg some of the medical research and how other countries approach the issue which is worth seeking out if you are interested.

    All of these have differing views on differing aspects of this issue and all are worth hearing, even if - perhaps especially if - you do not necessarily agree.

    So the idea that there is not plenty of material from differing perspectives is wrong. It is not, in my view, a "drumbeat of anti-trans" pieces more that as the issue has gained a certain salience the "no debate" approach has received push back and a number of people, some from the world of medicine, others who have had actual experience of the issues and others affected have - rightly - started asking some questions about the issues involved, the consequences and the unchallenged assumptions. Challenging assumptions and claims is a good - not a bad - thing.
    My point was not that there is a complete absence of articles from trans people in the press - these do exist as you rightly point out - but that CV never ever posts them. They seem to be singularly obsessed with this particular issue.
    Even if that's the case, CV wouldn't be the only poster here who is singularly obsessed with a particular issue.
    I believe CV posts on many topics and obviously being female is affected by all these changes and very entitled to give her opinion as a "woman" who may not want men in women's safe places. Getting rid of the rights of 50% of thepopulation to suit the fads of 0.04% of the population is criminal.
    Removing rights from 0.04% of the population because they are only a tiny part of the population is highly immoral.
    Which rights are there proposals to remove?

    If anything the Scottish government is proposing a substantial increase in the rights of people who are trans and purport to be trans

    Advancing the rights of 0.04% of the population (which is what is being proposed) potentially at the expense of 50%+ of the population is highly immoral. But there is to be "no debate". I wonder why?
    Exactly lots of blatant lying about needing rights etc when they hav esame rights as anyone else , no-one can come up with any justification for trashing rights of 50% of teh population just because 0.04% imagine they need more rights than anyone else.
    A lot of it is to do with language.

    Replace "Trans Women" with "Men who think they are women" and see how the argument sounds;

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's changing rooms

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should compete in women's sports

    Trans Women Men who think they are women should use women's rape shelters.
    Exactly , only idiots or ne'er do wells would think it is in any way reasonable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    kinabalu said:

    Trump is back in juicy lay territory.

    I'd have a slice of Sleepy Joe with that, except for the time-value-of-money point.
    Thinking a bit more about this. I'm not convinced Joe will run and finish - although he'll probably win if he does (assuming economy not terrible). And I think DeSantis is being overrated. And Trump is just not happening. So lay the top 3 is maybe not the worst play in the book.

    The much better depo rates are indeed to be considered. Betting 'dead certs' have competition now. Big change from how it's been for ages.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,348

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    Santos should take the lead given his vast experience.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
    Still prefer that 'Dems' at the lower price - but the good news is we can both win!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan. Since Sunak's style is more to get Britain's wellies stuck in the Grimpen Mire of an endless recession, I expect the slogan is under review.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?

    The more pertinent question is why it has taken them thirteen years to go looking for some jump leads? Having spend much of that time slashing the tyres and putting sugar into the fuel tank?

  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    The BBC reports that Michelle Donelan in an interview has insisted that the Elgin Marbles should not be returned to Greece, but doesn't explain why, except that it might lead to other exhibits being returned to other places.

    I just wondered whether anyone here had heard the whole interview and could say whether she attempted to justify her opinion beyond that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    edited January 11
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?

    You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.

    He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.

    And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
    I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.

    (a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?

    (b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
    What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
    Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
    I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
    Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare

    For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
    The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?

    The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.

    It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
    You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.

    The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.

    Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
    Yes it does.

    If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
    But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
    It does if inherited.

    You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.

    For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.

    Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
    People don't usually inherit jumpers.

    And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.

    Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.

    You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
    No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.

    Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
    Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:

    "If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
    Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
    And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
    No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
    Would the average middle class male?
    Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
    I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.

    Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
    My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
    I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".

    If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:

    https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

    As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
    Well if you believe the child of 2 Oxbridge science or law graduates will have the same IQ as the child of 2 parents who failed their GCSEs, fine
    There are plenty of idiot children of brilliant parents, and plenty of brilliant children of idiots.

    You are simply more likely to be smart if your parents are smart, and vice versa.

    Rare exceptions rather than plenty I suspect.

    Two parents with IQs of 80, will be more likely than not to have a child with an IQ above 80.

    And two with IQs of 120, will be more likely than not to have one with an IQ below 120.

    Yet still just 4% of doctors in the UK come from working class backgrounds and 13% of solicitors

    https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2020/02/diversity-medical-workforce-progress

    https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/01/posh-solicitors-pocket-almost-7000-more-than-working-class-colleagues/
    So what?

    For a start you haven't told me what proportion of people come from "working class backgrounds". Is it 5%? 20% 50%?

    Secondly, your doctor number is going to be skewed by the number of foreign doctors we import.
    About 50% on the social scale used.

    There may be some foreign middle class doctors imported but not 96% of doctors and nor does that explain the 87% of solicitors with middle class backgrounds
    Really?

    Because according the link you posted:



    "We refer to NS-SEC 6 and 7 occupations as working class."

    Now, are 50% of the population in those groups?

    Nope:



    It's 26% of the population.

    So, while the gap at the solicitor level is significant - 14% of solicitors come from working class backgrounds against 26% of the population - it is far from overwhelming. You are around 40% less likely to become a solicitor from a working class background as you are from an average one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.

    Other Things Being Equal.

    He is 80, making him a 1 in 6 shot for dementia just on grounds of age. That's before we get to the point that he has a dementia look and feel about him, and there's 2 years to go. And when he hits 82 he'll be a 7% chance of dying of something in the next year. And however he looks at 82, will just be a baseline for how he is likely to look at 86.
    I hope he does run and win, an 86 year old President would be quite the thing to see. Just as many people expect(ed) him to stand down in his first term, the assumption he would do so partway through a second term would be huge.
    Seriously, no. At 86 you just need to retire.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Fun fact, assuming a 2024 election, Keir Starmer would likely become PM after 9 years in Parliament, so depending on when in the year it took place he would be second or third on the list of shortest time in Parliament before becoming PM, after Rishi's 7 years, and Cameron's 9, at least in the 20th century. Politicians are in such a rush now, but at least he had a pretty full career first.

    Might go in cycles, since May and Brown both served a long time.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan.
    It sounds more like a laxative advertisement.

    But then again, probably Truss and Kwarteng did more than their fair share of avoiding any constipation problems during their brief tenure of office.
  • IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?

    The more pertinent question is why it has taken them thirteen years to go looking for some jump leads? Having spend much of that time slashing the tyres and putting sugar into the fuel tank?

    I'm sure that Sir Humphrey Appleby would point out that having generated the slogan, the government is absolved from acting on it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    kinabalu said:

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
    Still prefer that 'Dems' at the lower price - but the good news is we can both win!
    I think that sheds too much value.

    It must be 70%+ it's Biden (only potential issue is health or a calamity) so why drop down from c.4s to c.2s ??

    You can buy a bit of insurance on top on Harris or Whitmer if you like. Otherwise, you're paying premium to buy a very broad field that will never come into play.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.

    Other Things Being Equal.

    He is 80, making him a 1 in 6 shot for dementia just on grounds of age. That's before we get to the point that he has a dementia look and feel about him, and there's 2 years to go. And when he hits 82 he'll be a 7% chance of dying of something in the next year. And however he looks at 82, will just be a baseline for how he is likely to look at 86.
    I hope he does run and win, an 86 year old President would be quite the thing to see. Just as many people expect(ed) him to stand down in his first term, the assumption he would do so partway through a second term would be huge.
    Seriously, no. At 86 you just need to retire.
    Tell it to Matahir Mohamad, who was PM for the last time at 94, then stuck around to fight another relection (and lost his seat).

    It makes sense for dictators afraid of what might happen to them if they retire of course.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I wonder What3words gives for fairer.greener.future ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,813
    kle4 said:

    Fun fact, assuming a 2024 election, Keir Starmer would likely become PM after 9 years in Parliament, so depending on when in the year it took place he would be second or third on the list of shortest time in Parliament before becoming PM, after Rishi's 7 years, and Cameron's 9, at least in the 20th century. Politicians are in such a rush now, but at least he had a pretty full career first.

    Might go in cycles, since May and Brown both served a long time.

    Fun fact: the term 'Pulsar' for the astronomical feature was coined by a Daily Telegraph journalist, who was interviewing the team in Cambridge who discovered pulsars and suggested it to them.

    So the Daily Telegraph has been useful for at least one thing...

    (From a program on Jocelyn Bell Burnell I'm watching)

    And thanks to t'Internet, this was the guy, back when newspapers actually hired scientists to talk about science.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_R._Michaelis
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 32,145
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    Re-election for an incumbent who wants it is the default position.

    Other Things Being Equal.

    He is 80, making him a 1 in 6 shot for dementia just on grounds of age. That's before we get to the point that he has a dementia look and feel about him, and there's 2 years to go. And when he hits 82 he'll be a 7% chance of dying of something in the next year. And however he looks at 82, will just be a baseline for how he is likely to look at 86.
    I hope he does run and win, an 86 year old President would be quite the thing to see. Just as many people expect(ed) him to stand down in his first term, the assumption he would do so partway through a second term would be huge.
    Seriously, no. At 86 you just need to retire.
    Tell it to Matahir Mohamad, who was PM for the last time at 94, then stuck around to fight another relection (and lost his seat).

    It makes sense for dictators afraid of what might happen to them if they retire of course.
    “Remember - you are only President for life.”
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DJ41 said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Is there anything wrong with having a private GP? If so, why?

    You would have to ask Rishi that, since he is the one who seems ashamed of it.

    He had three routes with integrity. One was to use the NHS while he was a high profile politician. One was to come up with a solid explanation, as OGH has done above. The third was to not enter politics. Not choosing any of those does make him look like a worse person.

    And if he had to go down this path, he should have said "personal matter" not "private matter".
    I disagree - it's a trap and there is no answer that won't draw bile from those who want to be bilious.

    (a) Yes, I go private - Oh, NHS not good enough for you? How the hell can you be in charge of something you don't even trust to use?

    (b) Lie - get found out (as has been shown) - Why did you lie?
    What's wrong with Stuartinromford's first option, not going private whilst a prominent politician? It's not as if the PM's going to struggle to get an NHS appointment if he needed one.
    Because its performative nonsense, thats why. Should a politician only sit in rubbish seats at football (come on Keir, get out of that box)? Of only drive rubbish cars? And as for schooling - no more private schools for the kids. That would upset quite a few labour folk.
    I don't have a problem with rich people having nicer stuff. I'm richer than most people, I live in a nice big house, drive a decent sized car, had a nice long haul holiday over Christmas etc. I'm very grateful and I pay my taxes and I don't feel bad about it. But for me things like education and health are in a different class, because these are rights and everyone should have the best quality service that the country can afford. I don't think it's right that rich people can jump the queue to get operations before other people, and I don't think that rich people's kids should get better schools than other children. And I don't trust politicians who tell us they are going to deliver the best service possible and fund it appropriately, but refuse to use it themselves. To me the two just seem contradictory and I can't trust a politician like that. Of course other people feel differently about these things, as is their right.
    Pretty much my view too. With money comes all sorts of pleasures and privileges - which is fine - but what money shouldn't be able to buy is educational advantage or better essential healthcare

    For me the schools point is the bigger one since the more that parental bank balance features there, the greater is the violation of the ideal of equal opportunities. So I feel more strongly about private schools than I do about private health.
    The thing is Education is a public good. The better-educated the population is the better it is for society as a whole. So you'd think it would be good if people were using their own resources to increase the total amount of Education in the country. Why is it better in your eyes for someone to buy a new sports car every other year instead of pay Eton school fees?

    The reason, I think, is that you've bought into the ideology of meritocracy. This means that you see private education as someone cheating in the great meritocratic struggle. The problem here isn't private education. The problem is that meritocracy is a con used to justify inequality.

    It's a futile struggle to try and create a level playing field for meritocracy. Will never happen. Instead I think we should concentrate on people's right to dignity even if they don't become doctors or lawyers, and a fair share of the proceeds generated for society by Eton's education of the wealthy.
    You have me wrong here, LP. I don't fetishize meritocracy. That it ends in "ocracy" is a tell. It's an oppressive notion by itself. Eg, if outcomes are grossly unequal but everyone has a meritocratic fair shot at hitting the jackpot, this isn't the End of History imo. It makes no sense to view equal opportunity in isolation from outcomes. Both are important. Plus they impact each other in either direction.

    The goal for me is everyone realizes their potential, wealth of background minimized as a factor, with the material outcomes achieved to be far more closely bunched than they are today. It's an unachievable goal of course so the direction of travel is what counts in practice.

    Eton v sports car? Serial fast car purchase doesn't hardcode inequality into society, propagate it down through the generations. This is the essential difference to me.
    Yes it does.

    If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!
    But it doesn't cascade inequality down the generations, a Porsche 911, does it? Ditto most areas of discretionary private spend. Eg I bet I'd disapprove of some of your jumpers - find them morally wrong even - but I'll be relaxed about it because there's no violation of equal opportunities or propagating of societal inequality in your sartorial choices. Unless I'm missing something.
    It does if inherited.

    You are assuming that because everyone can't go to Eton nobody can. Except forgetting that even if private education was banned, grammar schools were banned, academies and free schools and faith schools were banned and everyone had to send their children to the local comprehensive there would still be inequality.

    For parents living in wealthier areas with more expensive houses would have better local schools than those living in poorer areas. So you would have to ban private sale of housing too and ensure everyone lived in social housing.

    Yet even then would still be inequality because those of high iq would tend to marry others of high iq and those of low iq those of low iq. So the children of the former would still be much more likely to become doctors, lawyers, ceos etc. So you would have to ban marriage amongst those of the same but not average iq and force the high iq to marry the low iq to ensure genetic shift towards average iq
    People don't usually inherit jumpers.

    And to say that inequality is multi-sourced and inevitable isn't a strong argument in favour of something that actively increases it.

    Thing is, H, this is an unbridgeable-by-debate difference in values and worldview. I'm egalitarian, meaning I have reducing inequality as a very high priority. Heart and head both tell me this. Head because I think it's illogical how resources are so unequally distributed. Heart because it upsets me that they are.

    You, otoh, are a traditional tory - with all that this entails.
    No you are not egalitarian, if you were you would be Communist or hardcore Socialist and support equality of outcome. If that was the case then fair enough, I might have some respect for your position even if I believed it misguided and likely to lead to more poverty overall.

    Instead you are just a liberal meritocrat. Fine with capitalism as long as there is perfect equality of opportunity, except as I have shown you and was pointed out earlier that is impossible to achieve and just reduces choice and excellence in education in reality in my view too
    Astonishing you are allowed to get away with:

    "If you ask the average working class man whether he could have a new sports car or send his children to learn Latin and Maths to 18 at Eton he would take the new sports car every time!" Have you met anyone working class?
    Plenty and I stand by my comment in terms of most of them
    And presumably they would all slap er indoors about a bit if she dared to advance her own opinion.
    No but if you really want to believe the average working class male in this country would turn down a new sports car in favour of sending their child to learn Latin at Eton that is up to you
    Would the average middle class male?
    Good point. There may be evidence out there to the contrary but I assume that regardless of class what you do or don't do for your sprogs is limited mainly by your financial circumstances. I suppose there might be some more unwanted kids in working class families who come lower down the pegging order than a new sports car, but it is not a very nice view hyufd has of the plebs (gets pay packet on Friday and goes straight down the bookies and the pub)
    I take the other viewpoint, that my kids come higher up the pecking order than sending them to a boarding school where they won't live with the family.

    Forced choice for my kids I would choose: Sports car (because why not), then no car at all, then Eton at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't rate my kids, but because I do, and I want them at home with me not shipped away to a boarding school unnecessarily.
    My comment was really about @hyufd looking down on the working class.
    I stopped reading when he started relying on the pseudoscientific garbage that is "IQ".

    If anyone is in need of a celebrity to enlighten them, Nassim Taleb, author of "The Black Swan", may do the job:

    https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

    As for boarding school and sports cars, most people who didn't go to boarding school have little clue what it's like. Men who went there and who then send their sons there are filth. It's not like a sports car which you can imagine driving with some reasonable degree of realism even if you've never driven one.
    Well if you believe the child of 2 Oxbridge science or law graduates will have the same IQ as the child of 2 parents who failed their GCSEs, fine
    There are plenty of idiot children of brilliant parents, and plenty of brilliant children of idiots.

    You are simply more likely to be smart if your parents are smart, and vice versa.

    Rare exceptions rather than plenty I suspect.

    Two parents with IQs of 80, will be more likely than not to have a child with an IQ above 80.

    And two with IQs of 120, will be more likely than not to have one with an IQ below 120.

    Yet still just 4% of doctors in the UK come from working class backgrounds and 13% of solicitors

    https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2020/02/diversity-medical-workforce-progress

    https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/01/posh-solicitors-pocket-almost-7000-more-than-working-class-colleagues/
    So what?

    For a start you haven't told me what proportion of people come from "working class backgrounds". Is it 5%? 20% 50%?

    Secondly, your doctor number is going to be skewed by the number of foreign doctors we import.
    About 50% on the social scale used.

    There may be some foreign middle class doctors imported but not 96% of doctors and nor does that explain the 87% of solicitors with middle class backgrounds
    Really?

    Because according the link you posted:



    "We refer to NS-SEC 6 and 7 occupations as working class."

    Now, are 50% of the population in those groups?

    Nope:



    It's 26% of the population.

    So, while the gap at the solicitor level is significant - 14% of solicitors come from working class backgrounds against 26% of the population - it is far from overwhelming. You are around 40% less likely to become a solicitor from a working class background as you are from an average one.
    According to hyufd on the last thread just 2 classes accounted for 100 - 105% of the population.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506
    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan. Since Sunak's style is more to get Britain's wellies stuck in the Grimpen Mire of an endless recession, I expect the slogan is under review.
    It sounds more like a laxative advertisement.

    But then again, probably Truss and Kwarteng did more than their fair share of avoiding any constipation problems during their brief tenure of office.
    It's not a great slogan, but it was relevant to what Truss aimed at achieving. Given the current ambulance and transport strikes, it takes on a certain absurd quality when applied to Sunak's Government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    kinabalu said:

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
    Still prefer that 'Dems' at the lower price - but the good news is we can both win!
    I think that sheds too much value.

    It must be 70%+ it's Biden (only potential issue is health or a calamity) so why drop down from c.4s to c.2s ??

    You can buy a bit of insurance on top on Harris or Whitmer if you like. Otherwise, you're paying premium to buy a very broad field that will never come into play.
    I wouldn't demur too much. I'm not in his head so we're mainly in the realms of 'hunch' about Biden not being on the ballot.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,268

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan. Since Sunak's style is more to get Britain's wellies stuck in the Grimpen Mire of an endless recession, I expect the slogan is under review.
    Not sure about Truss "Getting Britain Moving", but she certainly moved the markets' bowels....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
    That IS the value. Push to shove, which side?

    Want to do it?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I wonder What3words gives for fairer.greener.future ?
    Suitably enough, in the middle of virgin rainforest in the Yucatan.


    We could do all the Labour slogans:

    ///education.education.education

    ///britain.deserves.better

    ///forward.not.back

    And, maybe for a bonus:

    ///strong.and.stable - just for a laugh
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    ///longterm.economic.plan
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
    That IS the value. Push to shove, which side?

    Want to do it?
    No, as it doesn't have any value because we are't really judging between the sides as they are, but some imaginary left/right that does not exist, because we cannot interpret it through the actual leaders since we're ignoring them as they are shit.

    We don't actually learn anything other than what label people claim to prefer, and that doesn't actually reveal anything - there are some pretty conservative Labour people and pretty radical Conservatives.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginaryelections/
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,909
    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    Unfortunately the subtlety of “Getting Britain Moving” was lost on everyone. It was supposed to inspire a dual outcome, people would be enthused to “get moving” by jumping up and down and stamping their feet in order to stay warm and save energy and at the same time “get moving” and enjoy a healthier lifestyle and thus reduce the pressures on the, sorry, “Our” NHS.

    Sometimes genius is wasted on people.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    edited January 11

    kle4 said:

    If the GOP had their wits about them they'd run Marjorie Taylor Green/George Santos dream ticket against Biden.

    No love for Matt Gaetz?
    Good news is that a Trump-Gaetz OR Santos-Gaetz ticket is unconstitutional.

    Talk about the foresight of Our Founding Fathers!
    Why is it unconstitutional?

    (Assume you mean DeSantis ?)
    Constitution requires (Article II) that in voting for President and Vice President, presidential electors in each state must vote for at least one candidate who is NOT from their own state.

    So in theory, a FLORIDA DiSantis-Gaetz elector (or other way around) would be precluded from voting from either DiSantis or Gaetz; they could take their pick which one to vote (and not vote) for.

    Which in a close national presidential race in Electoral College, could lead to strange results. Simply too big a risk for parties & candidates (and visa-versa) who are serious prospects to actually get elected.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    ///long-term.economic.plan
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
    Still prefer that 'Dems' at the lower price - but the good news is we can both win!
    I think that sheds too much value.

    It must be 70%+ it's Biden (only potential issue is health or a calamity) so why drop down from c.4s to c.2s ??

    You can buy a bit of insurance on top on Harris or Whitmer if you like. Otherwise, you're paying premium to buy a very broad field that will never come into play.
    I wouldn't demur too much. I'm not in his head so we're mainly in the realms of 'hunch' about Biden not being on the ballot.
    We're not but all the signs are he's going to run and he wants to prove his virility in the meantime.
  • kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan. Since Sunak's style is more to get Britain's wellies stuck in the Grimpen Mire of an endless recession, I expect the slogan is under review.
    Not sure about Truss "Getting Britain Moving", but she certainly moved the markets' bowels....
    Which actually makes me very comfortable about Labour.

    If they try economic bullshit the markets will Labour back in their box.

    Hurrah for bankers.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,506

    kle4 said:

    Apparently, and I had no idea about this, the current slogan of the Tories is 'Getting Britain Moving'.

    I hate slogans, since I can never not snark about them, my instinctive response is to ask 'In which direction?'.

    Labour's is 'A fairer, greener future' supposedly. Who told them they were allowed more than 3 words?

    I think Getting Britain Moving is a Truss slogan. Since Sunak's style is more to get Britain's wellies stuck in the Grimpen Mire of an endless recession, I expect the slogan is under review.
    Not sure about Truss "Getting Britain Moving", but she certainly moved the markets' bowels....
    Several Tory supporters on this blog displayed similarly stained underpants - hence we now have Sunak-Hunt.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
    That IS the value. Push to shove, which side?

    Want to do it?
    No, as it doesn't have any value because we are't really judging between the sides as they are, but some imaginary left/right that does not exist, because we cannot interpret it through the actual leaders since we're ignoring them as they are shit.

    We don't actually learn anything other than what label people claim to prefer, and that doesn't actually reveal anything - there are some pretty conservative Labour people and pretty radical Conservatives.
    But if you were to answer I would learn something about you. Ditto if you refuse. So either way it has value. To me anyway.
  • Sorry does Russianguy1983 actually think Truss did a good job
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    @BritishVogue
    Tatjana Patitz, one of the original ’90s supermodels and star of George Michael’s “Freedom! 90” music video, has died aged 56.


    https://twitter.com/BritishVogue/status/1613229110272090127
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    Anabob, you gave me a great idea.

    That Joe Biden could chose a fellow Delawarian as his VP running mate, and only put at risk 3 electoral votes for his running mate.

    Perhaps in a gesture of bipartisanship, he could pick the "I Am Not A Witch" past GOP candidate for US Senate, provided she's still around?

    Instead of remake of "The Ghost and Mrs Muir" do "The Geezer and Ms Witch"!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
    That IS the value. Push to shove, which side?

    Want to do it?
    No, as it doesn't have any value because we are't really judging between the sides as they are, but some imaginary left/right that does not exist, because we cannot interpret it through the actual leaders since we're ignoring them as they are shit.

    We don't actually learn anything other than what label people claim to prefer, and that doesn't actually reveal anything - there are some pretty conservative Labour people and pretty radical Conservatives.
    But if you were to answer I would learn something about you. Ditto if you refuse. So either way it has value. To me anyway.
    I'd go with Jones. I don't like him, but occasionally he has some insights and has been known to change his position, not just dig in and escalate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Sorry does Russianguy1983 actually think Truss did a good job

    I think Lucky would argue she never had the opportunity to show she could do a good job.

    I'd say losing support so far so fast so you don't get the chance answers the question well enough.
  • Good evening

    I note that in addition to the hopes of an agreement on NIP, Sunak is having a get together with Macron in early March as relationship with the EU and France improve and of course Charles is going on his first state visit to France

    One thing that would upset the apple cart is if Sunak and Hunt move towards a more Norway style relationship with the EU and join the single market to address growth in the economy

    Sidelining the ERG and right of the conservative party is the way forward
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    I'm not sure it does have that much value even as a thought experiement to be honest. It would just force us ignore any legitimate caveats about the individuals and their own position in their respective factions, and just substitute them for our generic preconceptions of left or right or whatever, so we can select the right tribe.
    That IS the value. Push to shove, which side?

    Want to do it?
    No, as it doesn't have any value because we are't really judging between the sides as they are, but some imaginary left/right that does not exist, because we cannot interpret it through the actual leaders since we're ignoring them as they are shit.

    We don't actually learn anything other than what label people claim to prefer, and that doesn't actually reveal anything - there are some pretty conservative Labour people and pretty radical Conservatives.
    But if you were to answer I would learn something about you. Ditto if you refuse. So either way it has value. To me anyway.
    I'd go with Jones. I don't like him, but occasionally he has some insights and has been known to change his position, not just dig in and escalate.
    Total star. You, I mean, not Owen. These forced binaries are good if done in the right spirit. Which we've just managed to do.

    I'd go Jones too - but maybe not as in blood as you might think. Until he went up Trump's arse I quite rated Farage. Rarely agreed with him but thought he was ok. Now ... oh dear.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,190
    kinabalu said:

    A Meghan Markle - AOC dream ticket for the Democratic Party would be brilliant fun, at least on PB.

    Polarization does have its appeal. I sometimes muse about a UK presidential race, Nigel Farage v Owen Jones. And everyone HAS to vote. No abstentions, no 3rd way options like Sir Ed Davey. You have to choose. Who runs the country, Nige or OJ? This thought experiment forces you to really think about which side you're on, gun to head, and therefore has immense value. As a thought experiment.
    Think I'd be turning the gun on myself in that instance.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    ///long-term.economic.plan

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1613113120028856320

    Look at this and tell me you want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time? When you can get 8% risk free for putting your money on deposit?

    I want to back this guy at 3.95 current BF price to be reelected in 2 years time.
    Still prefer that 'Dems' at the lower price - but the good news is we can both win!
    I think that sheds too much value.

    It must be 70%+ it's Biden (only potential issue is health or a calamity) so why drop down from c.4s to c.2s ??

    You can buy a bit of insurance on top on Harris or Whitmer if you like. Otherwise, you're paying premium to buy a very broad field that will never come into play.
    I wouldn't demur too much. I'm not in his head so we're mainly in the realms of 'hunch' about Biden not being on the ballot.
    We're not but all the signs are he's going to run and he wants to prove his virility in the meantime.
    True. But would it look that different if he was actually very unsure about it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863
    Can we have a Fred on Harry's new book ? I don't feel I'm hearing enough about it on the airwaves
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,813

    Nigelb said:

    FT confirm the tanks story.

    UK and Poland confirm plans to send modern heavy tanks to Ukraine
    https://www.ft.com/content/092b8894-4441-4747-bfd4-5b21a0c68709

    (Though calling our tanks modern is a slight stretch.)

    Aren't they going to need separate everything including ammo?

    When Ukraine wins, they might end up on plinths in small towns. Not likely to make the same contribution as the Leopards.
    Yes. Logistically, providing a handful of tanks that require unique ammunition is a nightmare, but if Germany and the US are more comfortable not being the first countries to provide tanks then worth it for that reason alone.
    It's possible that if only a few tanks are provided (such as 10 Challenger 2s), then they could be put somewhere where the action is not currently too hot (e.g. the Belarussian border), freeing up other tanks to go to the fronts. That would also give the crews more time to train and get used to them, and also mean logistics is easier if they are more static.

    That's not the case if the tanks' capability is a significant step-change over the ex-Soviet tanks the Ukrainians are using.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 105,491
    edited January 11
    Pulpstar said:

    Can we have a Fred on Harry's new book ? I don't feel I'm hearing enough about it on the airwaves

    It is what I'm doing a thread about on Sunday.

    The Duke of Sussex should be the front man for No in the next Scottish Indyref.
This discussion has been closed.