Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Punters rate Trump as a 23.8% chance to win WH2024 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited May 2023 in General
imagePunters rate Trump as a 23.8% chance to win WH2024 – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Rather too high for my liking.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    He’ll be the American Bobby Sands.

    The GOP are cucks though.

    A GOP man can catch Trump in bed with his wife and he’d apologise to Trump for distributing him and then vote for him.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,937
    Trump still has a strong chance of winning the GOP nomination, however his chances of winning back swing voters and Independents in the general election are falling by the day
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    I particularly enjoy when he proclaims JC won in 2017 despite doing worse than Gordon Brown, who he says lost.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,217

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,522
    tlg86 said:

    Rather too high for my liking.

    You can't get any higher than first on a thread, can you?
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561

    tlg86 said:

    Rather too high for my liking.

    You can't get any higher than first on a thread, can you?
    Ask George Michael.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,522

    He’ll be the American Bobby Sands.

    The GOP are cucks though.

    A GOP man can catch Trump in bed with his wife and he’d apologise to Trump for distributing him and then vote for him.

    Nice typo. Disturbing, maybe?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    Dialup said:

    Reading Blair's memoirs.

    Goodness me the shit that has come since.

    You've read Brown's then?
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266
    Biden is still, inexplicably, available for Democratic nominee at 1.31
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    I would enjoy Trump insulting Keir Starmer.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    He’ll be the American Bobby Sands.

    The GOP are cucks though.

    A GOP man can catch Trump in bed with his wife and he’d apologise to Trump for distributing him and then vote for him.

    Eugene Debs.

    (Presume you mean 'disrupting'?)
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,842
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
    But when there’s a million vacancies, inflation of wages isn’t going down any time soon.

  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932
    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    It would be a disaster for Europe though as if Trump stopped supporting the Ukraine the EU won't be in a position to pick up the pieces and continue armament supplies quickly enough.

    And with Trump in power it's likely even if Ukraine won this war Putin would try again knowing that during the 4 years were Trump in power the USA wouldn't do a thing.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    Trump has a very real chance of winning.

    But in that case the UK must ignore the USA and get on with building bridges with Europe. We are not having Trumpism here, social democracy is back lads
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,135

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    "driver for inflation"
    No, it is part of the inflationary process, called the "wage-price spiral". You need something outside that process that triggers and/or sustains it for it to be called a driver. The BoE's determining of money supply and interest rates is candidate number one along with external pressures on prices like the Ukraine war. It's a question of exogeneity. By the same token, the exchange rate is a consequence or symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
    But when there’s a million vacancies, inflation of wages isn’t going down any time soon.

    Yep - which is why I don't see inflation being 5% at the end of this year - wage inflation pressures (alongside food inflation that's currently running at 22% or so) make it impossible.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266

    23.8% is way too low. He's almost certain to be GOP candidate, health permitting, and once candidate he stands a reasonable chance of winning.

    Yes, legal troubles will dog him, and will be a drag on his vote - but then he doesn't need anything like as many votes as a Democrat to win, and the GOP have learned the lessons of 2024 and have put (or are putting) the people and processes in place in their states to help him.

    They do have to get through the Debt Ceiling issue - don't assume that this will be resolved: not all games of chicken end without a crash - but overall I reckon he should be at least 35%.

    I've greened up level on Trump now and +£900 on Biden for the general.

    About -£550 on the field but with the usual heavy lays of Michelle Obama and Clinton.

    I think DeSantis is holed, even if he does do well in Iowa etc.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,217
    geoffw said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    "driver for inflation"
    No, it is part of the inflationary process, called the "wage-price spiral". You need something outside that process that triggers and/or sustains it for it to be called a driver. The BoE's determining of money supply and interest rates is candidate number one along with external pressures on prices like the Ukraine war. It's a question of exogeneity. By the same token, the exchange rate is a consequence or symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

    I think we are actually agreeing. The inflation spiral started with energy and supply chain disruptions.

    This kicked off wage inflation.

    Which is kicking off more price rises, which in turn is kicking off more wage demands.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,135
     

    geoffw said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    "driver for inflation"
    No, it is part of the inflationary process, called the "wage-price spiral". You need something outside that process that triggers and/or sustains it for it to be called a driver. The BoE's determining of money supply and interest rates is candidate number one along with external pressures on prices like the Ukraine war. It's a question of exogeneity. By the same token, the exchange rate is a consequence or symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

    I think we are actually agreeing. The inflation spiral started with energy and supply chain disruptions.

    This kicked off wage inflation.

    Which is kicking off more price rises, which in turn is kicking off more wage demands.
    Yes. The BoE's role now is to decide whether to accommodate the inflation or to stop it in its tracks.The latter is more costly in the short term, though the former is likely to be more costly (in terms of output foregone) in the long term. Of course it is trying the middle way.

  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,358
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
    But when there’s a million vacancies, inflation of wages isn’t going down any time soon.

    Are you going to tell the government? After all, they set a lot of people's wages, and they really don't seem to be grasping the possiblity that they may have to pay more to get people to work for them.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821
    Dialup said:

    I would enjoy Trump insulting Keir Starmer.

    That would be awful
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    He’ll be the American Bobby Sands.

    The GOP are cucks though.

    A GOP man can catch Trump in bed with his wife and he’d apologise to Trump for distributing him and then vote for him.

    Eugene Debs.

    (Presume you mean 'disrupting'?)
    Auto-correct is bane of my life.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
    But when there’s a million vacancies, inflation of wages isn’t going down any time soon.

    Are you going to tell the government? After all, they set a lot of people's wages, and they really don't seem to be grasping the possiblity that they may have to pay more to get people to work for them.
    Depends on the job.

    I sense there's no shortage of potential applications to become a train driver.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,358

    geoffw said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    "driver for inflation"
    No, it is part of the inflationary process, called the "wage-price spiral". You need something outside that process that triggers and/or sustains it for it to be called a driver. The BoE's determining of money supply and interest rates is candidate number one along with external pressures on prices like the Ukraine war. It's a question of exogeneity. By the same token, the exchange rate is a consequence or symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

    I think we are actually agreeing. The inflation spiral started with energy and supply chain disruptions.

    This kicked off wage inflation.

    Which is kicking off more price rises, which in turn is kicking off more wage demands.
    Except real pay started falling in Autumn 2021, before the Ukraine thing kicked off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/march2023#:~:text=Growth in total and regular,still remains among the largest

    After all, the money for those pay rises has to come from somewhere.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    Why would anyone trust the Tories on immigration?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,932
    edited May 2023

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    I'm surprised they didn't add the additional benefit that it would ensure everyone had photo ID when elections came round.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    Two Metropolitan Police officers are under criminal investigation for manslaughter over the death of a man who fell from the balcony of a flat after being tasered.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has announced that both officers are being investigated for gross negligence manslaughter. One is also being investigated for unlawful act manslaughter.

    The tasered man, who fell from the fifth floor of a building in Peckham, southeast London, last month, has not yet been formally identified despite extensive inquiries.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/two-met-police-officers-criminal-investigation-tasering-man-died-fall-balcony-fvtsl2b06
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    That would scupper the Tories' attempts at voter suppression..
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,217

    geoffw said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    "driver for inflation"
    No, it is part of the inflationary process, called the "wage-price spiral". You need something outside that process that triggers and/or sustains it for it to be called a driver. The BoE's determining of money supply and interest rates is candidate number one along with external pressures on prices like the Ukraine war. It's a question of exogeneity. By the same token, the exchange rate is a consequence or symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

    I think we are actually agreeing. The inflation spiral started with energy and supply chain disruptions.

    This kicked off wage inflation.

    Which is kicking off more price rises, which in turn is kicking off more wage demands.
    Except real pay started falling in Autumn 2021, before the Ukraine thing kicked off.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/averageweeklyearningsingreatbritain/march2023#:~:text=Growth in total and regular,still remains among the largest

    After all, the money for those pay rises has to come from somewhere.
    Which is why inflation will come down, but will stay noticeably higher than it has been since 2008
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    eek said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    It would be a disaster for Europe though as if Trump stopped supporting the Ukraine the EU won't be in a position to pick up the pieces and continue armament supplies quickly enough.

    And with Trump in power it's likely even if Ukraine won this war Putin would try again knowing that during the 4 years were Trump in power the USA wouldn't do a thing.
    It is hard to say what he would do but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it would be an unmitigated disaster. It wasn't the last time he was in power. He claimed that he was going to do all sorts of deals with Putin but little really materialised and Putin didn't try much on.

  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,186
    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    That would scupper the Tories' attempts at voter suppression..
    EDIT: beaten to it by eek

    EDIT EDIT: that was a reply rather than an EDIT. I've disgraced myself yet again.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    If privatisation has been such a success, why do the railways keep having to be brought into public hands?
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 636
    edited May 2023
    I've written a piece about the strongest councils for the Greens.

    In the council elections of May 4th, the flagship result for the Green Party was Mid Suffolk, which became the first council in England ever to be under majority control by the Greens, who doubled their seats to 24, against 6 for the Conservatives and 4 for the LibDems: a major achievement by any measure.

    The path for Mid Suffolk Greens is simple: they have a majority on the council, giving them control, and obviating reliance on any other party; they can, in short, do what they want.

    Beyond Mid Suffolk, and masked by success in that council, the surge in Green council seat numbers has expanded the ‘battlefield’ for the Greens considerably, who are now the largest party or main opposition on a significant number of councils. It’s these councils I want to consider.

    There are nine councils where some other party has a controlling majority, and the Greens are the second largest (i.e. official opposition) party: Brighton & Hove; Exeter; Knowsley; Norwich; Reading; Reigate & Banstead; Solihull; South Oxfordshire; South Tyneside.
    There are now seven councils where there is No Overall Control (NOC) where the Greens are now the largest party: Babergh; East Herts; East Suffolk; Folkestone & Hythe; Forest of Dean; Lewes; Warwick.
    There are five NOC councils where the Greens are the second largest party: Burnley; Lancaster; Malvern Hills; Wealden; Worcester.

    You can find the full piece (quite long) here:
    drinkentire.wordpress.com/2023/05/12/the-greens-in-local-government-after-may-2023
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,169

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    If we start demanding ID for everything, it would have to be paired with an amnesty or route to stay for illegal immigrants. Otherwise, we'd have to deport about a million people...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    British tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch has been extradited to the US to face criminal charges over the $11bn sale of his firm Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard.

    Mr Lynch - once dubbed "Britain's Bill Gates" after the Microsoft co-founder - will stand trial on charges including fraud, which he denies.

    He is accused of overinflating the value of his software firm when he sold it to HP in 2011.

    The Home Office confirmed that Mr Lynch was extradited to the US on Thursday.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65568967
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870

    Two Metropolitan Police officers are under criminal investigation for manslaughter over the death of a man who fell from the balcony of a flat after being tasered.

    There's a job waiting for them at the FSB.

    (Putin's Federal Security Bureau. Not the Federation of Small Businesses.)
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870

    There are nine councils where some other party has a controlling majority, and the Greens are the second largest (i.e. official opposition) party: Brighton & Hove; Exeter; Knowsley; Norwich; Reading; Reigate & Banstead; Solihull; South Oxfordshire; South Tyneside.

    Vale of White Horse too. LD 34, Green 4. And the LDs and Greens had stood aside for each other in several wards.

    First Past The Post's great, innit?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,956
    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    But there's more to the story than your simplification, or do you want people to be sacked based on an uninvestigated allegation?

    A Labour MP reported one of her party’s frontbenchers to police for allegedly sexually assaulting her, it has emerged.

    The MP contacted the Metropolitan Police in March and spoke to party whips. However, she later told officers that she did not want the investigation to continue.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/female-labour-mp-sexual-harassment-shadow-minister-police-2023-9c9v28wt5

    With Mike Hill, Starmer is prepared to trigger a by election and lose a seat if there's evidence of misconduct.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Yeah, I think the left could well try and do their own January 6th, which would be interesting to watch.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,363
    carnforth said:

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    If we start demanding ID for everything, it would have to be paired with an amnesty or route to stay for illegal immigrants. Otherwise, we'd have to deport about a million people...
    Aren't we supposed to be deporting illegal immigrants?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
    Secession is a likely outcome.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584
    edited May 2023
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.

    He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.

    There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.

    Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.

    And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.

    Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
    Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
    I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
    I’m happy to accept this.
    It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.

    The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
    It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.

    All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…

    I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
    The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.

    The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
    I have to sign off on the wage increases. Am I supposed to deny they are happening?

    Once again - wages at the bottom end have risen. Sometimes exceeding inflation. This is true from the evidence of my own business experience and working with suppliers.

    This is required to get the workers.

    That this is a driver for inflation in the U.K. is quite evident.

    I get that people find it upsetting to talk about. But denying it is as stupid as the people who claim there is no housing shortage.
    Isn't that the whole point of the Philips curve - unemployment and inflation have a reverse relationship. If you want to reduce inflation you need unemployment to avoid (or at least discourage unions asking for) inflationary wage increases.
    But when there’s a million vacancies, inflation of wages isn’t going down any time soon.

    Are you going to tell the government? After all, they set a lot of people's wages, and they really don't seem to be grasping the possiblity that they may have to pay more to get people to work for them.
    Depends on the job.

    I sense there's no shortage of potential applications to become a train driver.
    Just as well, the number who have to give it up after someone is so inconsiderate as to use their train for suicide. (Seriously, it's a non-trivial percentage. About 240 suicides on the railway a year, and 20K drivers of all kinds on UK railways, so in a working life of say 35 years [edit] times the proportion who can't get over it ...).
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,186
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,169
    edited May 2023
    Cookie said:

    carnforth said:

    No, no, no.

    I hate to say it, but we need ID cards to tackle illegal immigration

    It’s time to do the unthinkable; change tack and answer the clarion call of common sense


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/05/12/id-cards-tackle-illegal-immigration/

    If we start demanding ID for everything, it would have to be paired with an amnesty or route to stay for illegal immigrants. Otherwise, we'd have to deport about a million people...
    Aren't we supposed to be deporting illegal immigrants?
    Yes, but even quantity aside, it's not very practical when they arrived here at nine months old, are still nine years old and half their extended family are here legally. Even the famously anti-illegal-immigration public would begin to wince at that.

    Some able single bodied adults would leave of their own accord if illegal cash-in-hand work were impossible, of course. But it will never be impossible.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,084
    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    The opposite, darkage, I think. His odds are shorter than they should be because people are fearful and doing a mechanistic two step approach which reinforces the fear:

    (1) Is he likely to get the GOP nomination? People go YES. Because he's the clear frontrunner.

    (2) If he gets the nomination is he likely to become President? People go YES. Two horse race. Old man Biden. Divided partisan country.

    Multiply out these probabilities and it quite rationally gives a price of about where he is. 25%.

    However I believe this overrates his chances significantly.

    If you take a more 360 impressionistic view, bringing in things like his drip drip legal troubles, his inability to project in a way that appeals beyond his base, and consequently low ceiling of support, that he'd be running on a 'last election was rigged' platform which turns off most Americans and only reminds them of past chaos, that the GOP has a clear interest in somehow picking somebody more electable, the potential of scandals still to emerge, plus all the stupid things he might say or do starting from tomorrow, factor in all of this and then basically ask yourself the one big question:

    "Ok so what really are the chances of this guy regaining the White House?"

    You don't get 25% now. Least I don't. I get about half that. He ought to be double the price he is. Lay is the way here.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    I don't see any evidence that Trump will abandon Ukraine, in the way that (for Instance) Biden just abandoned Afghanistan. I don't know what the policy will be - but I don't think we should assume from the outset that it would be a disaster.
  • Options
    FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    No, IF that's what's happened here, that's just a run-of-the-mill dark day for alleged victims of sexual assault. This happens every day across the country, in many countries, to women (and some men too) in all corners of society. It's enraging, it's wrong, but it's oh so commonplace. It's not about the integrity of our constitutional order. It doesn't need to be about the integrity of our constitutional order to be taken seriously, but we are talking about different levels of threat here.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,186

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
    A witness statement counts as evidence afaik
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,514

    23.8% is way too low. He's almost certain to be GOP candidate, health permitting, and once candidate he stands a reasonable chance of winning.

    Yes, legal troubles will dog him, and will be a drag on his vote - but then he doesn't need anything like as many votes as a Democrat to win, and the GOP have learned the lessons of 2024 and have put (or are putting) the people and processes in place in their states to help him.

    They do have to get through the Debt Ceiling issue - don't assume that this will be resolved: not all games of chicken end without a crash - but overall I reckon he should be at least 35%.

    Absolutely. Though it would be madder than mad to re-elect him, we have to remember that this is America where mad things happen.

    I reckon it's what Putin is hoping for to get him out of his pickle.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,083
    edited May 2023

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    Labour are likely to be in government at the time, if Trump becomes President in January 2025. That simplifies things considerably for many I am sure - whatever Labour does will be wrong, and whatever ill that occurs will be Labour's fault.

    We see the same now, in reverse. Though, since it's the Tories in government it has the benefit of being true, obvs.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,514

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    Possibly, but in the absence of formal complaint or police investigation what sanction is possible, besides innuendo?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
    A witness statement counts as evidence afaik
    I could submit a witness statement saying this Blanche Livermore fellates donkeys but then say I don't want the police to investigate it.

    You are forever known as a donkey botherer.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
    Once Trump is in the White House, he can enable his supporters by neutering the state's power.

    The reason why the Jan 6 riot got as far as it did - and would have succeeded with even a small amount of planning and leadership (and ruthlessness) - was because Trump stood down the National Guard and did nothing to provide the military with orders.

    Ultimately, all those Executive agencies would be answerable to him, and to his proxies leading them.
  • Options
    BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 5,186

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
    A witness statement counts as evidence afaik
    I could submit a witness statement saying this Blanche Livermore fellates donkeys but then say I don't want the police to investigate it.

    You are forever known as a donkey botherer.
    You think the female Labour MP has invented the story? Ok..
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
    Secession is a likely outcome.
    If it did, it would be temporary and US forces at large would simply occupy those states and impose marital law.

    Secession wouldn't work for the same reasons it didn't last time. And in fact even the seceeding states wouldn't be stable because each would have strong Democrat minorities (even in places like Utah) and they'd be concentrated in the cities.

    It's doubtful they could rally much in the way of armed force to their flag.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    My two longshots for Eurovision tomorrow.

    Croatia as high as 150/1 with some bookies

    Israel 30/1.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    edited May 2023
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    I don't see any evidence that Trump will abandon Ukraine, in the way that (for Instance) Biden just abandoned Afghanistan. I don't know what the policy will be - but I don't think we should assume from the outset that it would be a disaster.
    The scenario that people seem to envisage whereby Trump green-lights Putin marching into Kyiv is a complete fantasy on several levels.

    When he talks in a hyperbolic way about ending the war in 24 hours, there's absolutely no reason to think that this is what he means, and even if he did mean that, he wouldn't have the power to make it happen.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266

    My two longshots for Eurovision tomorrow.

    Croatia as high as 150/1 with some bookies

    Israel 30/1.

    Rationale? Or just randomly selected on campness?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    My two longshots for Eurovision tomorrow.

    Croatia as high as 150/1 with some bookies

    Israel 30/1.

    Rationale? Or just randomly selected on campness?
    From another PB.

    Eurovision betting thoughts: Sweden are still odds-on favourites and likely to enchant the juries BUT the view count of her semi-final performance on YouTube is nowhere near the view counts of Finland, Croatia and Israel.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
    TSE - SKS Fan happy to see fellow Centrist get off scott free

    Shocking
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899

    My two longshots for Eurovision tomorrow.

    Croatia as high as 150/1 with some bookies

    Israel 30/1.

    So long as it's not a bloody ballad

    Austria and Finland CHA CHA CHA CHA POE POE POE POE for me.

    Spotify etc metrics seem to indicate Sweden will win though.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,266

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
    Once Trump is in the White House, he can enable his supporters by neutering the state's power.

    The reason why the Jan 6 riot got as far as it did - and would have succeeded with even a small amount of planning and leadership (and ruthlessness) - was because Trump stood down the National Guard and did nothing to provide the military with orders.

    Ultimately, all those Executive agencies would be answerable to him, and to his proxies leading them.
    But that confused situation took place over a few hours, and it was restored.

    I think, if Trump went against the constitution (which he is pledged to uphold) then many would consider their oath of loyalty to their commander-in-chief to be null and void. It could be akin to the rebellion against Boris Johnson in July 2022 but far less British and on a much grander scale.

    The only question is the confusion and vacuum of "who's in charge?" that could intercede for a few hours, or even a few days, but not much longer than that.

    Trump couldn't hold back the tide on 6th Jan and he wouldn't be able to this time either.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,584

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    Correction - you could imagine Trump winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent anyone else taking the presidency again.

    Even the US constitution is not a sufficient bar to a well-organised and -motivated political machine, aimed at subversion and backed up by force.
    I think the difference is the backed up by force bit.

    Yes, he has his MAGA troops. But I can't see the US forces/ secret service /CIA and FBI playing that game.

    What could happen is mass civil conflict.
    Secession is a likely outcome.
    If it did, it would be temporary and US forces at large would simply occupy those states and impose marital law.

    Secession wouldn't work for the same reasons it didn't last time. And in fact even the seceeding states wouldn't be stable because each would have strong Democrat minorities (even in places like Utah) and they'd be concentrated in the cities.

    It's doubtful they could rally much in the way of armed force to their flag.
    Marital law? Like the Utah War?
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    I don't see any evidence that Trump will abandon Ukraine, in the way that (for Instance) Biden just abandoned Afghanistan. I don't know what the policy will be - but I don't think we should assume from the outset that it would be a disaster.
    The scenario that people seem to envisage whereby Trump green-lights Putin marching into Kyiv is a complete fantasy on several levels.

    When he talks in a hyperbolic way about ending the war in 24 hours, there's absolutely no reason to think that this is what he means, and even if he did mean that, he wouldn't have the power to make it happen.
    He is playing to his base - they've been whipped up in to opposing the war because they hate Biden, so his solution is to say he is going to bring it to an end. But he is notably not being particularly supportive of Putin.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    Foxy said:

    23.8% is way too low. He's almost certain to be GOP candidate, health permitting, and once candidate he stands a reasonable chance of winning.

    Yes, legal troubles will dog him, and will be a drag on his vote - but then he doesn't need anything like as many votes as a Democrat to win, and the GOP have learned the lessons of 2024 and have put (or are putting) the people and processes in place in their states to help him.

    They do have to get through the Debt Ceiling issue - don't assume that this will be resolved: not all games of chicken end without a crash - but overall I reckon he should be at least 35%.

    Absolutely. Though it would be madder than mad to re-elect him, we have to remember that this is America where mad things happen.

    I reckon it's what Putin is hoping for to get him out of his pickle.
    Would the return of Trump in 20 months' time be soon enough to do that, though?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284
    Shameful, this is the sort of behaviour you expect from Chelsea or Spanners fans.

    Arsenal are liaising with the police over antisemitic posts sent in the WhatsApp group of the Ashburton Army, a prominent fan organisation to which the club give assistance.

    The messages on which a date is visible were sent in 2019 and are largely Holocaust-focused, though they also take in Israel-Palestine conspiracy theories, Jewish practice related to circumcision and Tottenham’s reputation as a Jewish club. The sentiments are communicated in words, songs, memes and cartoons.

    The Guardian has seen dozens of harrowing messages, some targeting all Jews and others directed at one Jewish supporter who was part of the group but has since left. In none of those screenshots did an administrator delete the offending posts, remonstrate with the perpetrators or remove those responsible from the group.


    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/may/12/arsenal-police-antisemitic-messages-ashburton-army-fan-group
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,284

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    People are so hysterical about Trump, you could imagine him winning the election and there being a serious attempt to prevent him taking office again.
    He's a sexual abuser and he tried to stop the democratic election from playing out last time. Any concerns people have about him are well-founded and fall very far short of the label "hysterical" being applicable.

    If you can't be alarmed about a pussy-grabbing, election-interfering, white nationalist madman being elected, is there anything you can be alarmed at?
    A female Labour MP says there’s a sexual abuser in the shadow cabinet, but former Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer appears to want to keep him in his job
    Ok, that also sounds bad.
    But I'm not advocating anyone vote for that shadow cabineter either, because I don't advocate voting Labour.

    And, if I may so, the existential threat to democracy isn't something that's at play in the case you're referring to. It's a sadly ordinary state of affairs that should be dealt with by that party and if necessary the Commons and the police.
    Her reason for not reporting it to the Commons’ authority and having decided not to press charges (he’s too popular in the party) sounds an awful lot like she’s been told to STFU

    Whilst maybe not a threat to democracy, it’s certainly a pretty fucking dark day for it
    So, supposition with no evidence on your part then?

    A bit like your comments on Gary Lineker.
    TSE - SKS Fan happy to see fellow Centrist get off scott free

    Shocking
    Nope.

    Now about your absolute boy in 2018

    Victim of Labour MP's alleged sexual harassment 'fobbed off' after Jeremy Corbyn 'ignored claims for two years'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/12/labour-sexual-harassment-victim-feeling-fobbed-jeremy-corbyn/
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,761
    I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%

    More like 40%
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,956

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    I don't see any evidence that Trump will abandon Ukraine, in the way that (for Instance) Biden just abandoned Afghanistan. I don't know what the policy will be - but I don't think we should assume from the outset that it would be a disaster.
    The scenario that people seem to envisage whereby Trump green-lights Putin marching into Kyiv is a complete fantasy on several levels.

    When he talks in a hyperbolic way about ending the war in 24 hours, there's absolutely no reason to think that this is what he means, and even if he did mean that, he wouldn't have the power to make it happen.
    I’ll yield to your superior insight into the innermost workings and motivations of Trumpmind, though ‘yeah, he says it but he doesn’t mean it, and even if he did mean it he wouldn’t be allowed to do it’ isn’t entirely reassuring.
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561
    @bigjohnowls I love you mate but let's be honest, at this point any objectivity you have has gone out the window and anything Labour says or does you twist into how much you hate SKS.

    We get it.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,287
    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,761
    Also, before my plane taking off cuts my signal, if net migration really is gonna get close to 1m in the next data release, that is going to explode all over UK politics

    It is utterly unprecedented in the history of the UK. It cannot be ignored. People will react
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,201

    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
    At least Gina G finished a reasonable 8th.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,169
    "Paul Clark: Former MP jailed over child abuse images"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-65557543
  • Options
    Leon said:

    I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%

    More like 40%

    Yes, possibly more,

    I think @darkage has a very good point in that, because people don't want him to win and think he is so awful, it is skewing the betting. It happened in 2016. I got 6/1 on both Brexit and Trump on the days of both votes, which is crazy when you think both were two horse races and what the opinion polls were stating.

    I still very much think there is value in a Trump-RDS bet. RDS has not only blown his chances for 2024 but potentially for 2028. Even if he did consider running then, his performance this time will have emboldened other GOP names to throw their hat in the ring for next time. If RDS wants to be President, his best bet is to get himself nominated as Trump's VP pick.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,169
    Leon said:

    Also, before my plane taking off cuts my signal, if net migration really is gonna get close to 1m in the next data release, that is going to explode all over UK politics

    It is utterly unprecedented in the history of the UK. It cannot be ignored. People will react

    It was half a million last year and everyone shrugged.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821

    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
    Gina G could sing a little bit
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011

    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    I get a sense with Trump that people don't believe it will happen because it is unthinkable and then - as a result - the betting doesn't price the situation correctly. I think that is happening here.

    I think it is realistic that he would win in 2024 and, whilst not ideal, I don't think it would be a total disaster; we would just need to get on with it, as we did last time.

    Just let Ukraine hang then? An awful lot of people are emotionally if somewhat vicariously invested in Ukraine winning, it would be interesting to see how many revert to ImnofanofTrumpbut-ism. More than a few in the Tory party I'd bet.

    Eg


    I don't see any evidence that Trump will abandon Ukraine, in the way that (for Instance) Biden just abandoned Afghanistan. I don't know what the policy will be - but I don't think we should assume from the outset that it would be a disaster.
    The scenario that people seem to envisage whereby Trump green-lights Putin marching into Kyiv is a complete fantasy on several levels.

    When he talks in a hyperbolic way about ending the war in 24 hours, there's absolutely no reason to think that this is what he means, and even if he did mean that, he wouldn't have the power to make it happen.
    I’ll yield to your superior insight into the innermost workings and motivations of Trumpmind, though ‘yeah, he says it but he doesn’t mean it, and even if he did mean it he wouldn’t be allowed to do it’ isn’t entirely reassuring.
    Except he didn't say it. It's a projection of people's own caricature of him as some agent of Putin.

    His promise to "end the war in 24 hours" is like his promise to bring peace to the Middle East. He's presenting himself as a dealmaker and power broker. If you take it seriously, you should realise that the only way to end the war in 24 hours is to threaten Putin directly, but because people see Trump as an agent of Putin, they don't consider this possibility.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,084
    Leon said:

    I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%

    More like 40%

    Wow. I'll give you tons better than that. I'll lay you @ 11/4 if you want.

    Your 4 against my 11. Do you have 4 of anything you can spare for when you lose?
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561

    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
    The studio version is decent, if not the most generic pop song I have ever heard.

    I just do not understand how you from Sam Ryder to this.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,201

    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
    Gina G could sing a little bit
    Ooh aah, a little bit more!
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,763
    edited May 2023
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Also, before my plane taking off cuts my signal, if net migration really is gonna get close to 1m in the next data release, that is going to explode all over UK politics

    It is utterly unprecedented in the history of the UK. It cannot be ignored. People will react

    It was half a million last year and everyone shrugged.
    Exactly. If the right wing press don't go on about it, then it doesn't matter to most people.



  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,761
    edited May 2023
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Also, before my plane taking off cuts my signal, if net migration really is gonna get close to 1m in the next data release, that is going to explode all over UK politics

    It is utterly unprecedented in the history of the UK. It cannot be ignored. People will react

    It was half a million last year and everyone shrugged.
    Immigration is slowly rising again, in the list of voter concerns. However most people have been focused on the boats and the enormous legal migration levels have escaped attention

    If we hit 700,000-1,000,000 that will change. Migration will become a burning issue

    Difficult to know who will benefit. Maybe no one. The Tories have lost control but Labour has no clear plan to do anything about it. Except be nicer to the boat people
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,217
    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    Also, before my plane taking off cuts my signal, if net migration really is gonna get close to 1m in the next data release, that is going to explode all over UK politics

    It is utterly unprecedented in the history of the UK. It cannot be ignored. People will react

    It was half a million last year and everyone shrugged.
    But when people realise they are all TransWokeIllegalAlienBioLabAIs?
  • Options
    DialupDialup Posts: 561

    Dialup said:

    The UK's song is good but the vocals live are terrible. I am not quite sure what has happened.

    They didn't get someone who could sing? Similar thing happened with Gina G.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh_KwCI4tUA
    Gina G could sing a little bit
    Ooh aah, a little bit more!
    Mae can sing, just not particularly well.
This discussion has been closed.