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

System

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

Read the full story here

tlg86

Rather too high for my liking.

TheScreamingEagles

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.

HYUFD

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

Dialup

I particularly enjoy when he proclaims JC won in 2017 despite doing worse than Gordon Brown, who he says lost.

Malmesbury

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Northern_Al

tlg86 said:

Rather too high for my liking.

You can't get any higher than first on a thread, can you?

Dialup

Northern_Al said:

tlg86 said:

Rather too high for my liking.

You can't get any higher than first on a thread, can you?

Ask George Michael.

Northern_Al

TheScreamingEagles said:

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?

williamglenn

Dialup said:

Reading Blair's memoirs.

Goodness me the shit that has come since.

You've read Brown's then?

darkage

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.

Casino_Royale

Biden is still, inexplicably, available for Democratic nominee at 1.31

Dialup

I would enjoy Trump insulting Keir Starmer.

eek

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

david_herdson

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%.

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

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'?)

Sandpit

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

williamglenn

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.

eek

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.

Dialup

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

geoffw

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

eek

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Casino_Royale

david_herdson 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%.

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.

Malmesbury

geoffw said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

geoffw

 

Malmesbury said:

geoffw said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Stuartinromford

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

bigjohnowls

Dialup said:

I would enjoy Trump insulting Keir Starmer.

That would be awful

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

david_herdson

williamglenn 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.

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.

Pulpstar

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

Stuartinromford

Malmesbury said:

geoffw said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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.

TheScreamingEagles

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/

Dialup

Why would anyone trust the Tories on immigration?

eek

TheScreamingEagles 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/

I'm surprised they didn't add the additional benefit that it would ensure everyone had photo ID when elections came round.

TheScreamingEagles

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

Malmesbury

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

geoffw said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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

darkage

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.

BlancheLivermore

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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

Dialup

If privatisation has been such a success, why do the railways keep having to be brought into public hands?

jamesdoyle

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

carnforth

TheScreamingEagles 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...

TheScreamingEagles

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

El_Capitano

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.)

El_Capitano

jamesdoyle said:

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?

Theuniondivvie

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

TheScreamingEagles

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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.

Casino_Royale

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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.

darkage

williamglenn 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.

Yeah, I think the left could well try and do their own January 6th, which would be interesting to watch.

Cookie

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles 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?

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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.

Carnyx

Pulpstar said:

Stuartinromford said:

Sandpit said:

eek said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

Gardenwalker 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 ...).

BlancheLivermore

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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

TheScreamingEagles

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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.

carnforth

Cookie said:

carnforth said:

TheScreamingEagles 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.

kinabalu

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.

darkage

Theuniondivvie 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.

BlancheLivermore

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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

Foxy

david_herdson 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.

LostPassword

Theuniondivvie 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

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.

Foxy

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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?

TheScreamingEagles

BlancheLivermore said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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.

david_herdson

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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.

BlancheLivermore

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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..

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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.

TheScreamingEagles

My two longshots for Eurovision tomorrow.

Croatia as high as 150/1 with some bookies

Israel 30/1.

williamglenn

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

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?

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

bigjohnowls

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Casino_Royale

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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.

Carnyx

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn 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 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?

darkage

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

Chris

Foxy said:

david_herdson 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?

TheScreamingEagles

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

Dialup

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

TheScreamingEagles

bigjohnowls said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Farooq said:

williamglenn 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/

Leon

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

More like 40%

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

Dialup

@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.

Stark_Dawning

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

Leon

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

Sunil_Prasannan

Stark_Dawning said:

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.

carnforth

"Paul Clark: Former MP jailed over child abuse images"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-65557543

TheKitchenCabinet

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.

carnforth

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.

bigjohnowls

Stark_Dawning said:

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

CatMan

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

What he "means" doesn't matter. He doesn't mean anything. He talks non stop crap all the fucking time. Maybe he'll keep supplying arms to Ukraine. Or maybe he'll stop all aid, fly to Moscow and give a press conference with Putin saying what a great guy he is. We have no idea what he'll really do because he's a narcissistic sociopath who only cares about himself.

williamglenn

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

kinabalu

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?

Dialup

Stark_Dawning said:

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.

Sunil_Prasannan

bigjohnowls said:

Stark_Dawning said:

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!

CatMan

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.

Leon

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

Malmesbury

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?

Dialup

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

Stark_Dawning said:

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.

Malmesbury

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

More like telling Kyiv to settle right now for the territory they have

bigjohnowls

Dialup said:

@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.

Wheras SKS fans will defend absolutely anything including just this week

Letting the Public Order Bill "bed in" rather than reversing it.

Can you just imagine if Corbyn had a sex pest in his Shadow Cabinet?

Would SKS fans be so "relaxed" in those circumstances?

williamglenn

Leon said:

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

It's slightly surreal that serious people still claim that we are suffering because of restricting immigration due to Brexit. Martin Weale (ex-BoE MPC) was trying to blame inflation on "Brexit limiting immigration".

Leon

CatMan said:

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.

That can and will change

LostPassword

williamglenn said:

darkage said:

Theuniondivvie 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.

At the moment the US is supplying Ukraine with large quantities of ammunition (and other equipment) on the basis of Presidential drawdown authorization. If Trump were to simply stop sending ammunition then Ukraine would rapidly be in serious trouble. If Trump were to stop sharing US intelligence with Ukraine, then they'd be in even more trouble.

And it was Trump who made the deal to pull US forces out of Afghanistan in return for nothing from the Taliban.