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 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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
People are also forgetting the timing on this as @Chris points out.
Trump, if he is elected, will only be in office from January 2025. By that time, it is very likely the war will be over and the way things are going, Russia will very likely be defeated or, at the very least, hanging on desperately with a decimated economy and very heavy losses.
There is a case - and I say this as someone who wants Ukraine to win, ahem, 'bigly' and for Ukraine to get the compensation for the damage it has suffered - that Trump may be better placed to handle a likely 2025 Russia which is probably going to be defeated, poor but also incredibly angry and virulently even more anti-western post-the war. The US screwed up in the 1990s not because it backed NATO expansion - because that was the right thing to do - but my not giving Russia more of a helping hand on its transition. It would be great if we didn't similarly screw up when the Russians get defeated.
@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?
I think SKS should commit to nationalising the water companies. And he should scrap tuition fees.
I don't defend anything he does, I just don't understand why you hate him so much. He's so boring it is difficult to hate him.
SKS at least did something about anti-Semitism, not me saying that, it's the BoD. What did Corbyn do, really?
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.
The fear is he'd withdraw support thus tilting the balance of power in the conflict towards Putin. Could be that he wouldn't, of course, since he tends to mouth off, but it's a definite risk.
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.
There are Ukrainian forces in Ukraine, not US forces. He can stop supplies from the US, but he can't pull anyone out, and he can't stop anybody else supplying and aiding Ukraine.
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.
The fear is he'd withdraw support thus tilting the balance of power in the conflict towards Putin. Could be that he wouldn't, of course, since he tends to mouth off, but it's a definite risk.
He would not be in until January 2025. Not only is that a long time away but, even if Russia was not defeated by then (which looks increasingly likely), a lame duck Biden Administration would almost certainly provide one last very large amount of supplies to Ukraine.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
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?
I'm just not sure it would be obeyed on a state-by-state basis; only on a partisan supporter basis which I don't think is cohesive enough to work.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
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.
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.
The fear is he'd withdraw support thus tilting the balance of power in the conflict towards Putin. Could be that he wouldn't, of course, since he tends to mouth off, but it's a definite risk.
He would not be in until January 2025. Not only is that a long time away but, even if Russia was not defeated by then (which looks increasingly likely), a lame duck Biden Administration would almost certainly provide one last very large amount of supplies to Ukraine.
Maybe. But Trump2 undeniably introduces serious risk for Ukraine. They'll be concerned about it.
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.
There are Ukrainian forces in Ukraine, not US forces. He can stop supplies from the US, but he can't pull anyone out, and he can't stop anybody else supplying and aiding Ukraine.
The French are planning to increase their production of 155mm artillery shells from 1,000 to 2,000. A month. An army can't fight without ammunition, and Europe is unable and unwilling to produce enough ammunition to prevent Ukraine from being massively outgunned in the absence of US supplies.
I wish it were otherwise, but that's the reality of the situation.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, this is a risk. People are unwise to dismiss it.
You're miles out with your assessment of his chances though. 35% - no way. It's much less than that. 15% is about right imo.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
That doesn't back up your claim that "Putin owns Trump".
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.
No it's the other way. People are overstating the chances of what they fear happening. They are also not processing the big picture properly. Trump's WH24 chances are nothing like current odds imply. It's a lay.
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.
It's very much like a work question yesterday - there is an obvious answer to the question - so the fact Trump worked hard to avoid the expected answer says an awful, awful lot.
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
In that case, we'd have a coup.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
That doesn't back up your claim that "Putin owns Trump".
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.
Shades of the old "you should take him seriously not literally rather than literally but not seriously".
God, didn't lots of smart-arses on the right think that was the line of the century?
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
In that case, we'd have a coup.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
That's missing the point that he wouldn't have suffered an 'election defeat'. If Congress certified him the winner then, constitutionally, he would be the winner.
The Electoral College process has generally become part of the theatre of politics rather than the mechanics of it but it remains the case that Congress can certify the votes however it sees fit - and those decisions are binding and final.
I see no more prospect of a (counter-)coup by some Deep State actors in the US, in the event of a successful Trumpite coup than in many other countries that slid into dictatorship via 'constitutional' methods: they'd go along with the flow, particularly when the entire leadership of those agencies was with the White House.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
That doesn't back up your claim that "Putin owns Trump".
Why does Trump say that he won't supply Ukraine?
You're putting words into his mouth. Watch the clip:
"I want Europe to put up more money. They're in for $20bn; we're in for $170bn. They should equalise. They have plenty of money... They're laughing at us. They think we're a bunch of jerks."
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
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.
No it's the other way. People are overstating the chances of what they fear happening. They are also not processing the big picture properly. Trump's WH24 chances are nothing like current odds imply. It's a lay.
It seems like the same dynamics brewing up again as 2016, but it could of course work out in a different way this time.
I think he will get the nomination, and all these court cases etc help him with that... but it is less likely that he will win the actual vote - he is quite an off putting character. What is he offering to democrat leaning voters?
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
In that case, we'd have a coup.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
That's missing the point that he wouldn't have suffered an 'election defeat'. If Congress certified him the winner then, constitutionally, he would be the winner.
The Electoral College process has generally become part of the theatre of politics rather than the mechanics of it but it remains the case that Congress can certify the votes however it sees fit - and those decisions are binding and final.
I see no more prospect of a (counter-)coup by some Deep State actors in the US, in the event of a successful Trumpite coup than in many other countries that slid into dictatorship via 'constitutional' methods: they'd go along with the flow, particularly when the entire leadership of those agencies was with the White House.
In such a case, I'd expect a breakaway Congress who'd refuse to certify him to which others would pledge loyalty.
Thus, you'd have the genesis of conflict.
I don't agree that the rest of the country would simply accept it and go with the flow.
Three days after Mike's article "A THING OF THE PAST – LAB LEADS OF 20%+?"
(Unless DeltaPoll surprise us, I don't see any 30-point lead. Labour has had a small uptick since the locals but Omnisis is on the high side here; there's no significant changes to fundamentals)
I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%
More like 40%
I think both Biden and Trump are underpriced: it's hard to see any other nominees, and while Biden should be favorite, he should be a relatively narrow one.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
Lest we forget
"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”"
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%
More like 40%
I think both Biden and Trump are underpriced: it's hard to see any other nominees, and while Biden should be favorite, he should be a relatively narrow one.
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.
No it's the other way. People are overstating the chances of what they fear happening. They are also not processing the big picture properly. Trump's WH24 chances are nothing like current odds imply. It's a lay.
It seems like the same dynamics brewing up again as 2016, but it could of course work out in a different way this time.
I think he will get the nomination, and all these court cases etc help him with that... but it is less likely that he will win the actual vote - he is quite an off putting character. What is he offering to democrat leaning voters?
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?
As so often you’re the one talking sense on this. He’s having to pay compensation to a woman he sexually assaulted, and that will allow him to win over the floating voters he would need? Poppycock!
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
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.
No it's the other way. People are overstating the chances of what they fear happening. They are also not processing the big picture properly. Trump's WH24 chances are nothing like current odds imply. It's a lay.
It seems like the same dynamics brewing up again as 2016, but it could of course work out in a different way this time.
I think he will get the nomination, and all these court cases etc help him with that... but it is less likely that he will win the actual vote - he is quite an off putting character. What is he offering to democrat leaning voters?
Not quite as old as Biden?
And in the midterms, there was (a) not a great performance from those who went full Trump and (b) not a great performance from the Republicans generally.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
Not all the US right though. Pence is even more hardline against Putin than Biden let alone his former boss.
Remember in 2012 it was Obama laughing off Romney's claims that Putin was the most serious threat to freedom and democracy
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
He is far from being the only person who said this... it was the establishment wisdom at the start of the war. It is also quite difficult to disagree with with when you factor in the risk of nuclear escalation.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
Not all the US right though. Pence is even more hardline against Putin than Biden let alone his former boss.
Remember in 2012 it was Obama laughing off Romney's claims that Putin was the most serious threat to freedom and democracy
Three days after Mike's article "A THING OF THE PAST – LAB LEADS OF 20%+?"
(Unless DeltaPoll surprise us, I don't see any 30-point lead. Labour has had a small uptick since the locals but Omnisis is on the high side here; there's no significant changes to fundamentals)
Success breeds success, and the opposite can also be the case.
I think the polls are responding to the very poor Tory performance, which was below expectations.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
Not all the US right though. Pence is even more hardline against Putin than Biden let alone his former boss.
Remember in 2012 it was Obama laughing off Romney's claims that Putin was the most serious threat to freedom and democracy
Excellent point. Romney was right.
But. Romney isn't who is guiding the opinions of the right these days. That Republican Party is dead dead dead.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
Lest we forget
"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”"
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
He is far from being the only person who said this... it was the establishment wisdom at the start of the war. It is also quite difficult to disagree with with when you factor in the risk of nuclear escalation.
Nuclear powers lose wars. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cyprus, Syria in the 80s, etc.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
Well it will be inevitable if Trump wins in 2024 and throws US resources behind his alleged (by Alec Baldwin's Trump character) boss Putin.
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
In that case, we'd have a coup.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
That's missing the point that he wouldn't have suffered an 'election defeat'. If Congress certified him the winner then, constitutionally, he would be the winner.
The Electoral College process has generally become part of the theatre of politics rather than the mechanics of it but it remains the case that Congress can certify the votes however it sees fit - and those decisions are binding and final.
I see no more prospect of a (counter-)coup by some Deep State actors in the US, in the event of a successful Trumpite coup than in many other countries that slid into dictatorship via 'constitutional' methods: they'd go along with the flow, particularly when the entire leadership of those agencies was with the White House.
In such a case, I'd expect a breakaway Congress who'd refuse to certify him to which others would pledge loyalty.
Thus, you'd have the genesis of conflict.
I don't agree that the rest of the country would simply accept it and go with the flow.
You may well have a conflict. Though with all the federal forces, including the army, under the direction of the president, such a conflict may not last long.
As for a breakaway Congress, easy enough for the DoJ to charge those individuals - and any supporting them - with sedition and treason. And that assumes that those inclined to set up a rebel Congress actually got out alive from the coup in DC.
Most people in most dictatorships go with the flow because it's too risky to do otherwise and because the actions of individuals cannot make a difference. Whether they 'accept' the situation or not is secondary to their powerlessness.
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.
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.
Putin owns Trump.
This is just a conspiracy theory.
No, there is a lot of support for Putin by the MAGA right. They hate Ukraine because they see it as allied to Biden.
That doesn't back up your claim that "Putin owns Trump".
Why does Trump say that he won't supply Ukraine?
You're putting words into his mouth. Watch the clip:
"I want Europe to put up more money. They're in for $20bn; we're in for $170bn. They should equalise. They have plenty of money... They're laughing at us. They think we're a bunch of jerks."
Add fact he cannout count and exaggerates wildly to his crimes
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
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.
It was only restored because Trump failed to plan it properly. Had the mob had a plan, with leadership, then 'hostile' elements of Congress could have been held hostage (or worse) while the rest of them certified Trump back into power. And Congress isn't answerable to anyone else, not even the SCOTUS, bar the public.
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
In that case, we'd have a coup.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
That's missing the point that he wouldn't have suffered an 'election defeat'. If Congress certified him the winner then, constitutionally, he would be the winner.
The Electoral College process has generally become part of the theatre of politics rather than the mechanics of it but it remains the case that Congress can certify the votes however it sees fit - and those decisions are binding and final.
I see no more prospect of a (counter-)coup by some Deep State actors in the US, in the event of a successful Trumpite coup than in many other countries that slid into dictatorship via 'constitutional' methods: they'd go along with the flow, particularly when the entire leadership of those agencies was with the White House.
In such a case, I'd expect a breakaway Congress who'd refuse to certify him to which others would pledge loyalty.
Thus, you'd have the genesis of conflict.
I don't agree that the rest of the country would simply accept it and go with the flow.
You may well have a conflict. Though with all the federal forces, including the army, under the direction of the president, such a conflict may not last long.
As for a breakaway Congress, easy enough for the DoJ to charge those individuals - and any supporting them - with sedition and treason. And that assumes that those inclined to set up a rebel Congress actually got out alive from the coup in DC.
Most people in most dictatorships go with the flow because it's too risky to do otherwise and because the actions of individuals cannot make a difference. Whether they 'accept' the situation or not is secondary to their powerlessness.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I simply don't think everyone would follow Trump straight off the cliff. The US is cleaved down the middle, half of them absolutely hate him, and they are concentrated amongst the educated, connected and urban, and are far from powerless.
What I think we would get is civil strife, and maybe even civil war.
I agree that Trump’s chances of winning are considerably in excess of 23.8%
More like 40%
I think both Biden and Trump are underpriced: it's hard to see any other nominees, and while Biden should be favorite, he should be a relatively narrow one.
Strongly disagree re Trump. There's lots of time yet for lots of potential 'happenings'. Developments of what we know plus the things we don't yet know. I think there's still at least a 50/50 chance he doesn't get the Nom. Then if he does get it I make him a very clear 2nd favourite in the general because his support is so capped. Far too short imo.
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...
...and is three years out of date. What does the curve look like now?
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.
The amazing thing is the Tories didn't even bother to contest some of the seats against the Greens, despite the Conservatives having a majority of about 23,000 in the Central Suffolk parliamentary constituency.
For example, Chilton (Stowmarket): 2 seats available, 2 Green candidates, 1 Conservative. One Green guaranteed election.
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.
Your words were ‘even if he did mean that’ which suggests some level of taking it seriously. Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
What he said was something along the lines of knowing what to say to Putin in order to end the war immediately.
He has also repeatedly said that it is inevitable that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
He is far from being the only person who said this... it was the establishment wisdom at the start of the war. It is also quite difficult to disagree with with when you factor in the risk of nuclear escalation.
Most people have modified their views as new evidence has appeared.
Mainly the thing that happens to all Prime Ministers. In the end, the job beats them all, because it's fundamentally impossible. The only question is how long it takes and what good they can do in the meantime.
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
Labour to introduce right to work from home, leaked manifesto plan says
Yes please! Thanks Keir!
Otherwise known as the right to pick kids up from school, take dog for a walk, wash car, and get paid for it.
If the work is being done (and I think we have enough evidence that in many organisations the work is being done), does that matter?
And if the work isn't getting done in some places, how about we investigate what some managers are doing right and others are doing wrong?
I am afraid in Local Government, Housing Associations etc working from home means nothing gets done. The difference between now and 4 years ago in how they operate is unbelievably stark. I can give hundreds of examples of a total failure of implenting their normal work systems. Their is no accountability and huge delays in the most basic of stuff.
On Eurovision thought I’d check out the Swedish entry that everyone is talking about. I got to 1.03 of the video before I had to switch it off. Christ, it’s awful, and I’m not surprised people are looking for good value outsiders.
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
So the most ambitious Republicans are probably best waiting until 2032 to run for President
Labour to introduce right to work from home, leaked manifesto plan says
Yes please! Thanks Keir!
Otherwise known as the right to pick kids up from school, take dog for a walk, wash car, and get paid for it.
If the work is being done (and I think we have enough evidence that in many organisations the work is being done), does that matter?
And if the work isn't getting done in some places, how about we investigate what some managers are doing right and others are doing wrong?
I am afraid in Local Government, Housing Associations etc working from home means nothing gets done. The difference between now and 4 years ago in how they operate is unbelievably stark. I can give hundreds of examples of a total failure of implenting their normal work systems. Their is no accountability and huge delays in the most basic of stuff.
I doubt it'll get that far, the urbanophiles will attack it as a White Flight charter.
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
Worth noting that Carter himself only won in the first place in large part because he was up against the unelected, bumbling Ford.
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.
No it's the other way. People are overstating the chances of what they fear happening. They are also not processing the big picture properly. Trump's WH24 chances are nothing like current odds imply. It's a lay.
It seems like the same dynamics brewing up again as 2016, but it could of course work out in a different way this time.
I think he will get the nomination, and all these court cases etc help him with that... but it is less likely that he will win the actual vote - he is quite an off putting character. What is he offering to democrat leaning voters?
Or to anyone beyond the MAGA base + GOP habituals. He'd have won in 2020 if he could have been just a little bit not himself but it was beyond him. And he's sunk even deeper into his own world now.
2016? Ok but I don't see too big a similarity. Joe Biden isn't HRC and in 2016 Trump was an insurgent newcomer to politics whereas now he's a known quantity and most of what is known is negative to most people.
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
Are you volunteering to be press-ganged?
They could not afford me.
You’ll be getting minimum wage, since that is what you want to force people to take
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
An unknown from 2020 is how much covid had an effect on driving up the turnout for Biden.
Labour to introduce right to work from home, leaked manifesto plan says
Yes please! Thanks Keir!
Otherwise known as the right to pick kids up from school, take dog for a walk, wash car, and get paid for it.
If the work is being done (and I think we have enough evidence that in many organisations the work is being done), does that matter?
And if the work isn't getting done in some places, how about we investigate what some managers are doing right and others are doing wrong?
You hang on listening to crap for 30 mins and then it says goodbye as all teh WFH layabouts are out sunning themselves, getting ratarsed or down school picking up the brats.
Three days after Mike's article "A THING OF THE PAST – LAB LEADS OF 20%+?"
(Unless DeltaPoll surprise us, I don't see any 30-point lead. Labour has had a small uptick since the locals but Omnisis is on the high side here; there's no significant changes to fundamentals)
Omnisis tends to favour Labour with lower Lib Dem and Conservative scores compared with the average of other polling companies (particularly now that PeoplePolling have not released a poll since the end of March). But even if you adjust the lead from 27% to 23% it is still significant.
Mainly the thing that happens to all Prime Ministers. In the end, the job beats them all, because it's fundamentally impossible. The only question is how long it takes and what good they can do in the meantime.
This is a rotten government. When everything else has failed and all you're left with is beating up unfortunates in boats you deserve every bit of opprobrium you get.
This government is vile and Sunak hasn't changed that one bit.
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.
Sure they could survive fine on 50% of what they have if they just made them work.
Are you volunteering to be press-ganged?
They could not afford me.
You’ll be getting minimum wage, since that is what you want to force people to take
Where did I say that? My only comment was that Sandpit was talking bollocks as any increase in minimum wage was much less than Brexit negative bonus and so his claim on Brexit was absolute bollocks. I did say the government could like get shot of 50% of staff and no-one would notice the difference. Time for Specsavers young lad.
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.
The amazing thing is the Tories didn't even bother to contest some of the seats against the Greens, despite the Conservatives having a majority of about 23,000 in the Central Suffolk parliamentary constituency.
For example, Chilton (Stowmarket): 2 seats available, 2 Green candidates, 1 Conservative. One Green guaranteed election.
There appears to be something of a malaise at councillor level in large parts of the Tory party, and I wish somebody would take a look at it. As well as this and other examples of the Cons undernominating, they also appear to be losing their backroom support - as an example, in the Worthing West part of Worthing, all their candidates this year were each their own agent, whereas previously they've had a single paid agent doing all the work. Whatever the reasons, whether financial, enthusiasm, or whatever, it doesn't bode well for regaining lost seats, or holding seats in the future.
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
An unknown from 2020 is how much covid had an effect on driving up the turnout for Biden.
I think Trump was the major factor driving up turnout for Biden.
I think the best case against Trump in 2024, was that the closer he was to a candidate in 2022, the worse they did.
Take Kari Lake. She was Trump's biggest fan, and she repeated his talking points ad nauseum.
Arizona, a purple state, in the midterms, with a charisma free Democratic candidate who refused to debate should have been an easy Republican hold. And indeed, the Republicans won six of the nine Congressional Districts, usually fairly comfortably.
But Ms Lake trailed Republican Congressional candidates by 4 to 9 points in every district. The voters said "yes, we want Republicans, but we don't want the batshit crazy Trump ones."
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.
As an aside, the US electorate usually give two terms to their Presidents, the exceptions being the hapless Carter and Bush Sr (who was a third term Republican President).
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
An unknown from 2020 is how much covid had an effect on driving up the turnout for Biden.
I would also point out that Covid usually boosted incumbents (see Johnson, .
Comments
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?
And it was Trump who made the deal to pull US forces out of Afghanistan in return for nothing from the Taliban.
Trump, if he is elected, will only be in office from January 2025. By that time, it is very likely the war will be over and the way things are going, Russia will very likely be defeated or, at the very least, hanging on desperately with a decimated economy and very heavy losses.
There is a case - and I say this as someone who wants Ukraine to win, ahem, 'bigly' and for Ukraine to get the compensation for the damage it has suffered - that Trump may be better placed to handle a likely 2025 Russia which is probably going to be defeated, poor but also incredibly angry and virulently even more anti-western post-the war. The US screwed up in the 1990s not because it backed NATO expansion - because that was the right thing to do - but my not giving Russia more of a helping hand on its transition. It would be great if we didn't similarly screw up when the Russians get defeated.
I don't defend anything he does, I just don't understand why you hate him so much. He's so boring it is difficult to hate him.
SKS at least did something about anti-Semitism, not me saying that, it's the BoD. What did Corbyn do, really?
So therefore he's nowhere near the current Tory party.
Trouble with words is that sometimes they are taken seriously, as with the ‘sightseers’ of Jan 6th.
So, civil strife.
I wish it were otherwise, but that's the reality of the situation.
You're miles out with your assessment of his chances though. 35% - no way. It's much less than that. 15% is about right imo.
Labour to introduce right to work from home, leaked manifesto plan says
Yes please! Thanks Keir!
The military has no history or culture of political interference against a sitting president. Besides, if Trump returns, expect his first and far most important question when appointing anyone to be 'is this person personally loyal to me'. That goes for generals and admirals as much as directors and secretaries of departments.
It's very much like a work question yesterday - there is an obvious answer to the question - so the fact Trump worked hard to avoid the expected answer says an awful, awful lot.
The Secret Service would have removed him from the White House had he refused to leave following his election defeat.
None of this means I'm the slightest bit relaxed about a Trump victory, by the way, or shy of the risks if he does take office - it's just I don't think he'd be able to pull it off with a rabble and a few lackeys, and there'd be a strong counterreaction.
God, didn't lots of smart-arses on the right think that was the line of the century?
The Electoral College process has generally become part of the theatre of politics rather than the mechanics of it but it remains the case that Congress can certify the votes however it sees fit - and those decisions are binding and final.
I see no more prospect of a (counter-)coup by some Deep State actors in the US, in the event of a successful Trumpite coup than in many other countries that slid into dictatorship via 'constitutional' methods: they'd go along with the flow, particularly when the entire leadership of those agencies was with the White House.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/10/politics/ukraine-russia-putin-trump-town-hall/index.html
"I want Europe to put up more money. They're in for $20bn; we're in for $170bn. They should equalise. They have plenty of money... They're laughing at us. They think we're a bunch of jerks."
If there is each way betting, it's definitely worth a punt.
LAB: 51% (+3)
CON: 24% (-3)
LDM: 10% (+3)
RFM: 6% (=)
GRN: 4% (-2)
SNP: 3% (-1)
Via @Omnisis, 11-12 May.
Changes w/ 4-5 May.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1657035671540838403
30 point lead. Incoming.
I think he will get the nomination, and all these court cases etc help him with that... but it is less likely that he will win the actual vote - he is quite an off putting character. What is he offering to democrat leaning voters?
Thus, you'd have the genesis of conflict.
I don't agree that the rest of the country would simply accept it and go with the flow.
(Unless DeltaPoll surprise us, I don't see any 30-point lead. Labour has had a small uptick since the locals but Omnisis is on the high side here; there's no significant changes to fundamentals)
"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday described Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy,” praising his onetime counterpart for a move that has spurred sanctions and universal condemnation from the U.S. government and its trans-Atlantic allies.
“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful,” Trump said in a radio interview with “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show.” “He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”"
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923
👍 Approve: 28% (-6)
👎 Disapprove: 42% (+3)
🤷 Neither: 30% (+2)
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1657034387240677377
Something has happened to Rishi Sunak.
And in the midterms, there was (a) not a great performance from those who went full Trump and (b) not a great performance from the Republicans generally.
Remember in 2012 it was Obama laughing off Romney's claims that Putin was the most serious threat to freedom and democracy
I think the polls are responding to the very poor Tory performance, which was below expectations.
As for a breakaway Congress, easy enough for the DoJ to charge those individuals - and any supporting them - with sedition and treason. And that assumes that those inclined to set up a rebel Congress actually got out alive from the coup in DC.
Most people in most dictatorships go with the flow because it's too risky to do otherwise and because the actions of individuals cannot make a difference. Whether they 'accept' the situation or not is secondary to their powerlessness.
CDU/CSU 31%
AfD 17%
SPD 16%
Greens 16%
Left 6%
FDP 5%
Others 9%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
I simply don't think everyone would follow Trump straight off the cliff. The US is cleaved down the middle, half of them absolutely hate him, and they are concentrated amongst the educated, connected and urban, and are far from powerless.
What I think we would get is civil strife, and maybe even civil war.
For example, Chilton (Stowmarket): 2 seats available, 2 Green candidates, 1 Conservative. One Green guaranteed election.
https://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/assets/Elections/2023-Elections/Mid-Suffolk-District-Council-results-26.pdf
Trump has not.
And if the work isn't getting done in some places, how about we investigate what some managers are doing right and others are doing wrong?
Indeed, the last time that a party lost the White house after a single term led to three terms for the other guys.
Of course, Trump was himself another exception.
CDU plus AfD on 48% so a right-wing government there for the taking if Merz agrees. He probably won't but he might unlike Merkel
2016? Ok but I don't see too big a similarity. Joe Biden isn't HRC and in 2016 Trump was an insurgent newcomer to politics whereas now he's a known quantity and most of what is known is negative to most people.
This government is vile and Sunak hasn't changed that one bit.
I did say the government could like get shot of 50% of staff and no-one would notice the difference. Time for Specsavers young lad.
I think the best case against Trump in 2024, was that the closer he was to a candidate in 2022, the worse they did.
Take Kari Lake. She was Trump's biggest fan, and she repeated his talking points ad nauseum.
Arizona, a purple state, in the midterms, with a charisma free Democratic candidate who refused to debate should have been an easy Republican hold. And indeed, the Republicans won six of the nine Congressional Districts, usually fairly comfortably.
But Ms Lake trailed Republican Congressional candidates by 4 to 9 points in every district. The voters said "yes, we want Republicans, but we don't want the batshit crazy Trump ones."