You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
Attention turned to the second, more general, concern: why on earth was this eye-wateringly expensive and seemingly inappropriate village chosen? Surely a cheaper and larger location would be more appropriate economically? Parishioners were struggling with the maths. Some are smart cookies.
Parishioner: This makes no sense economically.
Rep: There is only a small profit margin and details are commercially confidential.
Parishioner: Are you a charity? I guess you fund this partly from donations?
Rep: No we are a private business. We have no donations. The only funding we have is council-funding.
Parishioner: Then what aren’t you telling us? 6 F/T staff plus 1 P/T plus 2 cars plus upkeep and other costs, plus insurance plus the commercial rent of a 1.5M house at £50k pa? For 2 children? The council pay? You are kidding us? Etc Etc
The parishioners left the meeting feeling bewildered about the economics of it rather than being overly concerned about the change of use. What was being concealed?
I’ve been mulling this over for two weeks now. I reckon this property will cost £0.5M pa to run, purely council-funded.
For two children.
We often talk of the cost of nursing homes for the elderly. We need to pay attention to child social care costs. It is no wonder that councils are going bust.
Hence the old joke that sending all the children in care to Eton and Winchester would be cheaper.
The real reason for this is almost certainly like this. If you read the Winston Smith blog about working in a care home, care homes are one stop shopping for er.... taxi drivers.
The problem was a combination of a number of children, no supervisory powers to stop them doing stuff and the local presence of unsavoury characters.
So, setting up a (in effect) a family home in the middle of nowhere, for 2 children, *might* counteract these effects. It would certainly appear to be an attempt to doo the diametric opposite of previous efforts.
Aren't those very different sorts of children in care? Stocky is talking about children with multiple disabilities who need high dependency care. The Winston Smith blog was talking about children who are physically well, but in social care because of issues with their parents.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
When you look at some MPS who have taken the shilling and done nothing for their constituents. Hat tips go to jailbird Jared, Mad Nad and Bozo, By comparison I would imagine HY's constituents would get a top quality service.
As I say, faint praise and low bars spring to mind. If he has ever had a novel idea or unique perspective on events then he must have expressed them when I haven't been on here. His support for Johnson when it was obvious to all that the man was an habitual liar demonstrates HY, by extension, has no integrity. His tanks in Scotland and the childish "proper Tory" debates demonstrate his level of argument.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. Meanwhile, Biden...
He's pretty incoherent in interviews. I don't see someone in full possession of his faculties. You could say that he was the same 8 years ago, so he may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but he hasn't declined... but he doesn't seem to me to have the same feel for the electorate he once did. He survives on his prior popularity.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump will keel over in mid-rant. At some point.
Those final 3 words would win Olympic weightlifting gold at a canter.
The stats say something like a 5% chance this year...
I don't think he'll fade away, it'll be sudden.
Yep that's a solid enough call. Re the 5% it's worth noting it's not only death that would knock him out of WH24 on health grounds. So would a whole host of medical events. It's not a bad idea to list them and assign a probability to each - although maybe not on here.
I wouldn't dream of betting directly on them on the basis of morbidity and mortality risk. Nothing could be more distasteful. But it does make long odds flutters on the likes of Christie more appealing given how sharply everything is going to shorten if the main man goes down.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
When you look at some MPS who have taken the shilling and done nothing for their constituents. Hat tips go to jailbird Jared, Mad Nad and Bozo, By comparison I would imagine HY's constituents would get a top quality service.
As I say, faint praise and low bars spring to mind. If he has ever had a novel idea or unique perspective on events then he must have expressed them when I haven't been on here. His support for Johnson when it was obvious to all that the man was an habitual liar demonstrates HY, by extension, has no integrity. His tanks in Scotland and the childish "proper Tory" debates demonstrate his level of argument.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
Far be it for me to excuse some of HY's more outlandish foibles, I nonetheless believe his work ethic as a local MP would be excellent. That said I don't want him as my Prime Minister or even in the cabinet, but as a constituency MP he would be first rate.
Attention turned to the second, more general, concern: why on earth was this eye-wateringly expensive and seemingly inappropriate village chosen? Surely a cheaper and larger location would be more appropriate economically? Parishioners were struggling with the maths. Some are smart cookies.
Parishioner: This makes no sense economically.
Rep: There is only a small profit margin and details are commercially confidential.
Parishioner: Are you a charity? I guess you fund this partly from donations?
Rep: No we are a private business. We have no donations. The only funding we have is council-funding.
Parishioner: Then what aren’t you telling us? 6 F/T staff plus 1 P/T plus 2 cars plus upkeep and other costs, plus insurance plus the commercial rent of a 1.5M house at £50k pa? For 2 children? The council pay? You are kidding us? Etc Etc
The parishioners left the meeting feeling bewildered about the economics of it rather than being overly concerned about the change of use. What was being concealed?
I’ve been mulling this over for two weeks now. I reckon this property will cost £0.5M pa to run, purely council-funded.
For two children.
We often talk of the cost of nursing homes for the elderly. We need to pay attention to child social care costs. It is no wonder that councils are going bust.
Hence the old joke that sending all the children in care to Eton and Winchester would be cheaper.
The real reason for this is almost certainly like this. If you read the Winston Smith blog about working in a care home, care homes are one stop shopping for er.... taxi drivers.
The problem was a combination of a number of children, no supervisory powers to stop them doing stuff and the local presence of unsavoury characters.
So, setting up a (in effect) a family home in the middle of nowhere, for 2 children, *might* counteract these effects. It would certainly appear to be an attempt to doo the diametric opposite of previous efforts.
Aren't those very different sorts of children in care? Stocky is talking about children with multiple disabilities who need high dependency care. The Winston Smith blog was talking about children who are physically well, but in social care because of issues with their parents.
I thought the issues weren't specified as physical?
Some the children in the Winston Smith examples were in care because of massive issues with themselves - and not receiving more than money and enablement of self destructive behaviours.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
HY isn't pompous though, so there's always that.
Yes there is that, except that he often posts as though he is posting fact, when in fact he is posting opinion of his own or unsubstantiated opinion of others. Anyway, I won't say anymore, as I don't want to look like character assassination as I am sure he is actually a nice chap. I just don't think he should be encouraged to be an MP.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
I couldn't give a shit how old he is so long as he can do the job. He seems to be doing quite well.
He is. The concern is the 2nd term but compared to a Trump2 that is no concern at all.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. Meanwhile, Biden...
He's pretty incoherent in interviews. I don't see someone in full possession of his faculties. You could say that he was the same 8 years ago, so he may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but he hasn't declined... but he doesn't seem to me to have the same feel for the electorate he once did. He survives on his prior popularity.
they had "a few conversations" with Sir Humphrey before the "advancing years, without in any way impairing his verbal fluency, disengaged the operation of his mind from the content of his speech,"
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Attention turned to the second, more general, concern: why on earth was this eye-wateringly expensive and seemingly inappropriate village chosen? Surely a cheaper and larger location would be more appropriate economically? Parishioners were struggling with the maths. Some are smart cookies.
Parishioner: This makes no sense economically.
Rep: There is only a small profit margin and details are commercially confidential.
Parishioner: Are you a charity? I guess you fund this partly from donations?
Rep: No we are a private business. We have no donations. The only funding we have is council-funding.
Parishioner: Then what aren’t you telling us? 6 F/T staff plus 1 P/T plus 2 cars plus upkeep and other costs, plus insurance plus the commercial rent of a 1.5M house at £50k pa? For 2 children? The council pay? You are kidding us? Etc Etc
The parishioners left the meeting feeling bewildered about the economics of it rather than being overly concerned about the change of use. What was being concealed?
I’ve been mulling this over for two weeks now. I reckon this property will cost £0.5M pa to run, purely council-funded.
For two children.
We often talk of the cost of nursing homes for the elderly. We need to pay attention to child social care costs. It is no wonder that councils are going bust.
I am sure that it depends on the level of care (@dixiedean has some expertise in this) but care for these children can be very pricy.
Near me was such a home for a half dozen kids for a while. It was a nightmare for the neighbours, with vandalism, thefts, drugs, and the police round a couple of times per week until it got closed down after an inspection. The staff made no real attempt to control the kids, it was just a private company profiteering. No doubt these kids are being a nightmare somewhere else now.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump will keel over in mid-rant. At some point.
Those final 3 words would win Olympic weightlifting gold at a canter.
The stats say something like a 5% chance this year...
I don't think he'll fade away, it'll be sudden.
Yep that's a solid enough call. Re the 5% it's worth noting it's not only death that would knock him out of WH24 on health grounds. So would a whole host of medical events. It's not a bad idea to list them and assign a probability to each - although maybe not on here.
I wouldn't dream of betting directly on them on the basis of morbidity and mortality risk. Nothing could be more distasteful. But it does make long odds flutters on the likes of Christie more appealing given how sharply everything is going to shorten if the main man goes down.
There are plenty of things more distasteful than betting on public figures dying.
This is interesting IMO. From 1954 to 1968 Abbot Laboratories ran an advertising campaign for their drug Pentothal by sending postcards from unusual and exotic locations around the world to thousands of doctors in the USA, Canada and elsewhere. (It's the sort of thing Adam Curtis would be interested in).
"The postcards and the truth drug Adam Curtis
Sodium Pentothal is an anaesthetic. But it was also used by both sides in the Cold War as a truth drug in interrogations. It was made by Abbot Laboratories. They used a very strange way to advertise Pentothal. They sent postcards from around the world - the first here is from Rwanda - to doctors in America."
"It is interesting to read the messages, each of which varies but carries the same theme about ‘the natural choice of Pentothal as an intravenous anaesthetic’. All the postcards except one are signed ‘abbott’. Stamps and franking of the card often lead to interesting stories; for instance, one describes Lundy Island, England as ‘a place without Pentothal’. In 1961, out of 286 000 mailings from a town called Wilkes in Australian Antarctic Territory, 280 000 were from Abbott. This venture resulted in local mailing restrictions. The 1958 Abbott mailing from Punta Arenas, Chile, took 8 months to complete as there was only one part time postal worker there, working 1 h a day with a hand cancel stamper. Baghdad had to be dropped off the mailing list because of bureaucracy and red tape."
Malmesbury said: "10.7% probability tha[t] *one* of them keels over in the next year....
Someone tell me I am wrong, please?"
I won't, but I would like to see what a life actuary would add to that analysis. Trump is obese, eats a poor diet, gets little exercise, and is getting less and less social support from those around him. (I think the actuary would also want to look at how long their parents and grandparents lived.)
Biden has had two brain operations, but takes better care of himself than Trump does. People laughed when he fell off a bicycle, but I doubt very much that Trump is even able to ride a bicycle.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Quite. And how is it that Trump apparently did no work and larded around watching TV, playing golf and talking trash, yet is apparently the biggest threat to the world since whatever killed the dinosaurs? He must be exceedingly effective in the zero time he actually spends working.
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump will keel over in mid-rant. At some point.
Those final 3 words would win Olympic weightlifting gold at a canter.
The stats say something like a 5% chance this year...
I don't think he'll fade away, it'll be sudden.
Yep that's a solid enough call. Re the 5% it's worth noting it's not only death that would knock him out of WH24 on health grounds. So would a whole host of medical events. It's not a bad idea to list them and assign a probability to each - although maybe not on here.
Why not? - we are a betting site. The fact that two quite elderly men are the front runners is signifiant. Trump is in poor physical shape, but active. Biden looks physically healthier.
As I noted earlier - we are looking at a ~10% probability that one (or both) of them keels over before election day.
What I mean is you (or me) - no, let's say you - should do it and post the conclusion, which I agree is relevant for betting purposes, but we don't need to see the workings, don't need to see all of the 'non death but campaign ending events' - catastrophic stroke, fall and hit the head, abdominal aneurysm, sudden onset psychosis etc etc.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
When you look at some MPS who have taken the shilling and done nothing for their constituents. Hat tips go to jailbird Jared, Mad Nad and Bozo, By comparison I would imagine HY's constituents would get a top quality service.
As I say, faint praise and low bars spring to mind. If he has ever had a novel idea or unique perspective on events then he must have expressed them when I haven't been on here. His support for Johnson when it was obvious to all that the man was an habitual liar demonstrates HY, by extension, has no integrity. His tanks in Scotland and the childish "proper Tory" debates demonstrate his level of argument.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
Far be it for me to excuse some of HY's more outlandish foibles, I nonetheless believe his work ethic as a local MP would be excellent. That said I don't want him as my Prime Minister or even in the cabinet, but as a constituency MP he would be first rate.
I am sure people thought that about Jeremy Corbyn.
Attention turned to the second, more general, concern: why on earth was this eye-wateringly expensive and seemingly inappropriate village chosen? Surely a cheaper and larger location would be more appropriate economically? Parishioners were struggling with the maths. Some are smart cookies.
Parishioner: This makes no sense economically.
Rep: There is only a small profit margin and details are commercially confidential.
Parishioner: Are you a charity? I guess you fund this partly from donations?
Rep: No we are a private business. We have no donations. The only funding we have is council-funding.
Parishioner: Then what aren’t you telling us? 6 F/T staff plus 1 P/T plus 2 cars plus upkeep and other costs, plus insurance plus the commercial rent of a 1.5M house at £50k pa? For 2 children? The council pay? You are kidding us? Etc Etc
The parishioners left the meeting feeling bewildered about the economics of it rather than being overly concerned about the change of use. What was being concealed?
I’ve been mulling this over for two weeks now. I reckon this property will cost £0.5M pa to run, purely council-funded.
For two children.
We often talk of the cost of nursing homes for the elderly. We need to pay attention to child social care costs. It is no wonder that councils are going bust.
Hence the old joke that sending all the children in care to Eton and Winchester would be cheaper.
The real reason for this is almost certainly like this. If you read the Winston Smith blog about working in a care home, care homes are one stop shopping for er.... taxi drivers.
The problem was a combination of a number of children, no supervisory powers to stop them doing stuff and the local presence of unsavoury characters.
So, setting up a (in effect) a family home in the middle of nowhere, for 2 children, *might* counteract these effects. It would certainly appear to be an attempt to doo the diametric opposite of previous efforts.
Aren't those very different sorts of children in care? Stocky is talking about children with multiple disabilities who need high dependency care. The Winston Smith blog was talking about children who are physically well, but in social care because of issues with their parents.
I thought the issues weren't specified as physical?
Some the children in the Winston Smith examples were in care because of massive issues with themselves - and not receiving more than money and enablement of self destructive behaviours.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
Looking my age is no problem. Acting my age is trickier.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Quite. And how is it that Trump apparently did no work and larded around watching TV, playing golf and talking trash, yet is apparently the biggest threat to the world since whatever killed the dinosaurs? He must be exceedingly effective in the zero time he actually spends working.
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
If Biden does make it to his second term and Pope Francis pops his clogs and is replaced by a younger model there is the very real prospect that the Pope is younger than POTUS
Since we are on Usonian Elections, I see that the Mississippi constitutional lifetime bar on people convicted of some crimes (including shoplifting and bouncing a >$100 cheque) having a vote has been struck down.
The barred crimes you can lose the right to vote for include: voter fraud, murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking or larceny under lease or rental agreement.
Numbers:
Population: 2.95 million.
Last Presidential Election in Mississippi:
Electorate: 2.19 million Votes cast: 1.314 million. Turnout: 60.6%
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Quite. And how is it that Trump apparently did no work and larded around watching TV, playing golf and talking trash, yet is apparently the biggest threat to the world since whatever killed the dinosaurs? He must be exceedingly effective in the zero time he actually spends working.
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
If Biden does make it to his second term and Pope Francis pops his clogs and is replaced by a younger model there is the very real prospect that the Pope is younger than POTUS
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
When I referred to poor nutrition under HO care earlier, I hadn't realised there were actual cases of scurvy as well as the TB we known about.
Also: "weeks" before the barge is fit for use again. (Which surprises me a bit. Perhaps they just use a slow tester.)
That piece doesn't refer to poor nutrition under HO care, it refers to inadequate screening, strongly implying (as seems somewhat more likely) that the sufferers picked up their conditions before they got to the UK. Catering for asylum seekers in the UK is by companies who are obliged by their contracts to provide fresh fruit at any time of the day.
What I find interesting is the aggression (and frankly sheer length) of this anti-Suella briefing from a 'senior Tory':
“This utter farce follows endless warnings to Home Office ministers about the prospect of health outbreaks, inadequate health screening and wider public health concerns following cases of TB and scurvy in recent weeks in these highly contentious migrant accommodation sites.
“Having created a serious and now deadly migrant housing crisis, it is obvious to all that the Home Secretary has lost all control and authority on the issue of illegal migration.
“She is responsible for this crisis and should be held to account for her irresponsible actions that have brought disease to these sites and now threaten the public health of the local community.
“She should be sacked.”
It reads more like a press release than someone sounding off in frustration to a journalist. Absolutely toxic.
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
(During his time in office, life expectancies rose for all major groups, and the US did something unusual for a developed country in recent decades: Total Fertility rate rose above 2.1 in a couple of years, while he was in office.)
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
Looking ravaged and careworn would be a considerable improvement on what he's done to himself.
I think he looks ok. If that's me at 80, I'll take it.
Looks like people playing games with photos to me - soft focus on the older one, carefully selected recent one, where expression is stretching the skin.
It's a simple trick to get a photo of just about anyone that makes them look mad, sick etc - modern digital camera, shoot non-stop until you get the momentary expression you want.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
Looking my age is no problem. Acting my age is trickier.
Well you've gone seriously downhill in a short space of time. Just last year you used to look like a progressive bald greek god with a penchant for motorbikes, leather trousers, and democratic ownership of the economy.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
I agree. He would, however, need to keep the 'invade Scotland' rhetoric out of the chamber and keep it for the fringe. Perhaps a newly formed Scottish Research Group.
Surely, he should keep it in the tank?
Ukraine says hi, and asks if there’s any tanks going spare…
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Of course it is. But the responsibility ages you nevertheless. It's because the buck stops with you and you care. Trump didn't.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
I agree. He would, however, need to keep the 'invade Scotland' rhetoric out of the chamber and keep it for the fringe. Perhaps a newly formed Scottish Research Group.
Surely, he should keep it in the tank?
Ukraine says hi, and asks if there’s any tanks going spare…
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
That headline pretty much matches the discussions that happen here.
Almost every Tory supporter here (past or present) backs net zero, thinking it needs to be achieved by replacing dirty technologies with clean ones to allow clean growth.
Many [not all] left-wingers here want to see lower consumption/redistribution instead of tackling climate emissions via clean technologies.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Dick Cheney was the effective head of the W administration, with Bush the Lesser as the figurehead.
As for the "Cabinet could be more than figureheads" argument, well the better ones usually are (for example, many in FDR's cabinets).
However, NO president has or (fearless forecast) is ever gonna go for a UK-style cabinet.
When I referred to poor nutrition under HO care earlier, I hadn't realised there were actual cases of scurvy as well as the TB we known about.
Also: "weeks" before the barge is fit for use again. (Which surprises me a bit. Perhaps they just use a slow tester.)
That piece doesn't refer to poor nutrition under HO care, it refers to inadequate screening, strongly implying (as seems somewhat more likely) that the sufferers picked up their conditions before they got to the UK. Catering for asylum seekers in the UK is by companies who are obliged by their contracts to provide fresh fruit at any time of the day.
What I find interesting is the aggression (and frankly sheer length) of this anti-Suella briefing from a 'senior Tory':
“This utter farce follows endless warnings to Home Office ministers about the prospect of health outbreaks, inadequate health screening and wider public health concerns following cases of TB and scurvy in recent weeks in these highly contentious migrant accommodation sites.
“Having created a serious and now deadly migrant housing crisis, it is obvious to all that the Home Secretary has lost all control and authority on the issue of illegal migration.
“She is responsible for this crisis and should be held to account for her irresponsible actions that have brought disease to these sites and now threaten the public health of the local community.
“She should be sacked.”
It reads more like a press release than someone sounding off in frustration to a journalist. Absolutely toxic.
The piece isn't clear either way re scurvy. But it's odd as it shouldn't even exist after a while of decent food, even if it is a prior syndrome.
Edit: I've seen specific reports of some contractors - hotels, anyway - which don't provide even remorely balanced diets.
Attention turned to the second, more general, concern: why on earth was this eye-wateringly expensive and seemingly inappropriate village chosen? Surely a cheaper and larger location would be more appropriate economically? Parishioners were struggling with the maths. Some are smart cookies.
Parishioner: This makes no sense economically.
Rep: There is only a small profit margin and details are commercially confidential.
Parishioner: Are you a charity? I guess you fund this partly from donations?
Rep: No we are a private business. We have no donations. The only funding we have is council-funding.
Parishioner: Then what aren’t you telling us? 6 F/T staff plus 1 P/T plus 2 cars plus upkeep and other costs, plus insurance plus the commercial rent of a 1.5M house at £50k pa? For 2 children? The council pay? You are kidding us? Etc Etc
The parishioners left the meeting feeling bewildered about the economics of it rather than being overly concerned about the change of use. What was being concealed?
I’ve been mulling this over for two weeks now. I reckon this property will cost £0.5M pa to run, purely council-funded.
For two children.
We often talk of the cost of nursing homes for the elderly. We need to pay attention to child social care costs. It is no wonder that councils are going bust.
I am sure that it depends on the level of care (@dixiedean has some expertise in this) but care for these children can be very pricy.
Near me was such a home for a half dozen kids for a while. It was a nightmare for the neighbours, with vandalism, thefts, drugs, and the police round a couple of times per week until it got closed down after an inspection. The staff made no real attempt to control the kids, it was just a private company profiteering. No doubt these kids are being a nightmare somewhere else now.
Well, this was of course the initial concern of the parishioners. It was interesting to see at the meeting the concern switch, and become more general, when costs were considered (all taxpayer-funded). There was utter astonishment at the level of costs councils are paying. I'm very concerned and quite upset about it and it may produce one of my rare letters to my MP.
One parishioner questioned the morality of housing two children for potentially 10 years in a £1.5m property (which up here is pretty much a mansion) only for them to be passed on (which is what happens) at age 17 to some form of adult care in much less fancy surroundings. Another questioned what financial input was sought from the delinquent parents, e.g. can we put a charge on their house/assets? This produced a vacant look from the representative. That will be none then.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
When you look at some MPS who have taken the shilling and done nothing for their constituents. Hat tips go to jailbird Jared, Mad Nad and Bozo, By comparison I would imagine HY's constituents would get a top quality service.
As I say, faint praise and low bars spring to mind. If he has ever had a novel idea or unique perspective on events then he must have expressed them when I haven't been on here. His support for Johnson when it was obvious to all that the man was an habitual liar demonstrates HY, by extension, has no integrity. His tanks in Scotland and the childish "proper Tory" debates demonstrate his level of argument.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
Far be it for me to excuse some of HY's more outlandish foibles, I nonetheless believe his work ethic as a local MP would be excellent. That said I don't want him as my Prime Minister or even in the cabinet, but as a constituency MP he would be first rate.
With all due respect, I don't think anyone who advocates batons for those going to vote (like in Catalonia), or sending tanks into Scotland if they vote the wrong way, is suitable to a Member of Parliament.
I can respect those I disagree with, but not those who endorse violence in politics. That's not suitable for a constituency MP in any Party.
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
The act of voting Tory (esp these Tories) is highly reprehensible (I shy from 'evil') but those who do it are not all bad people. That would be an intolerant, absurdly reductive and narrow minded view of life, which being on my wing of the Left is not in my DNA.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Quite. And how is it that Trump apparently did no work and larded around watching TV, playing golf and talking trash, yet is apparently the biggest threat to the world since whatever killed the dinosaurs? He must be exceedingly effective in the zero time he actually spends working.
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
If Biden does make it to his second term and Pope Francis pops his clogs and is replaced by a younger model there is the very real prospect that the Pope is younger than POTUS
I wonder if that has ever happened before?
Ha, Yes! Ronald Reagan and Pope JP2
Interesting question. Pope Pius IX (a pretty young pope) was also younger than Zachary Taylor, and Pope Pius VII was younger than John Adams. Those are the only other ones I can spot, although it's quite close in some cases.
In the UK, Churchill was older than Pope Pius XII, who was Pope throughout Churchill's two periods in office.
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
The act of voting Tory (esp these Tories) is highly reprehensible (I shy from 'evil') but those who do it are not all bad people. That would be an intolerant, absurdly reductive and narrow minded view of life, which being on my wing of the Left is not in my DNA.
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
The act of voting Tory (esp these Tories) is highly reprehensible (I shy from 'evil') but those who do it are not all bad people. That would be an intolerant, absurdly reductive and narrow minded view of life, which being on my wing of the Left is not in my DNA.
It's tricky getting your tongue in both cheeks at the same time isn't it.
I am not on the CCHQ approved candidates' list and not interested in applying for the moment, though I know a few who are on the list who will be interested in the seats approved candidates can now apply for
I can't imagine a more diligent local MP.
Bearing in mind some of the utter dross that have become Conservative candidates and MPs I am surprised you haven't thrown your hat into the ring. (Edit: them not you!)
Time ticks by young HY. But only a few years ago I left University in my 20s. I turned around twice and before I knew it I became eligible for my Welsh bus pass.
If the Tories do crash and burn at the next GE, being in pole position for the rebuild wouldn't be a bad place to be.
I think HYUFD would be a good Tory MP - dependable, intelligent, loyal but not dumb. They could do a lot worse (and frequently do).
Damned by faint praise. "They could do a lot worse (and frequently do)", whilst being true for Tories and Labour, it is not the endorsement I would like for anyone standing for the Mother of Parliaments.
There are aspects of HY that I quite like. There are lots that I do not, and his inability to do anything other than toe the party line is the main one. The Tory Party in particular desperately needs intelligent independent thinkers rather than groupspeakers. SO for that reason, "I'm out".
When you look at some MPS who have taken the shilling and done nothing for their constituents. Hat tips go to jailbird Jared, Mad Nad and Bozo, By comparison I would imagine HY's constituents would get a top quality service.
As I say, faint praise and low bars spring to mind. If he has ever had a novel idea or unique perspective on events then he must have expressed them when I haven't been on here. His support for Johnson when it was obvious to all that the man was an habitual liar demonstrates HY, by extension, has no integrity. His tanks in Scotland and the childish "proper Tory" debates demonstrate his level of argument.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
Far be it for me to excuse some of HY's more outlandish foibles, I nonetheless believe his work ethic as a local MP would be excellent. That said I don't want him as my Prime Minister or even in the cabinet, but as a constituency MP he would be first rate.
I am sure people thought that about Jeremy Corbyn.
I gather that Jeremy Corbyn is considered an excellent constituency MP,
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
Looking ravaged and careworn would be a considerable improvement on what he's done to himself.
I think he looks ok. If that's me at 80, I'll take it.
Looks like people playing games with photos to me - soft focus on the older one, carefully selected recent one, where expression is stretching the skin.
It's a simple trick to get a photo of just about anyone that makes them look mad, sick etc - modern digital camera, shoot non-stop until you get the momentary expression you want.
Likewise, you can make someone truly insane look perfectly normal.
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. Meanwhile, Biden...
He's pretty incoherent in interviews. I don't see someone in full possession of his faculties. You could say that he was the same 8 years ago, so he may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but he hasn't declined... but he doesn't seem to me to have the same feel for the electorate he once did. He survives on his prior popularity.
Obama was pretty awful when his autocue froze too:
Vertical Aerospace, founded by Stephen Fitzpatrick, was dealt a blow on Wednesday when a test flight failed in dramatic fashion.
The Bristol-based startup, which is producing a five-seater flying taxi that can reach speeds of up to 200mph, said in a short statement that its prototype had crashed during a test of the “aircraft’s manoeuvrability”.
Announcing Wednesday’s crash to investors, Vertical Aerospace said: “The aircraft was remotely piloted and there were no injuries.
“Our flight test programme is designed to establish the limits of the aircraft’s performance, and the incident occurred during an uncrewed test of the aircraft’s manoeuvrability during a motor failure test scenario, which is a key requirement to progress to crewed operations. We are working closely with the relevant authorities.”
Presumably that’s going to be a full AAIB field investigation, in which case they’re going to be grounded for months at best, and probably out of money. The report will be worth reading though!
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
The act of voting Tory (esp these Tories) is highly reprehensible (I shy from 'evil') but those who do it are not all bad people. That would be an intolerant, absurdly reductive and narrow minded view of life, which being on my wing of the Left is not in my DNA.
Here is an interesting article in the Grauniad that will be an absolute shocker to people like @kinabalu who really does believe that only Labour supporters have virtue and all Tory voters are evil:
The act of voting Tory (esp these Tories) is highly reprehensible (I shy from 'evil') but those who do it are not all bad people. That would be an intolerant, absurdly reductive and narrow minded view of life, which being on my wing of the Left is not in my DNA.
It's tricky getting your tongue in both cheeks at the same time isn't it.
I see Cruella's gameplan here. Floating petri dishes could well reduce the numbers of asylum seekers significantly.
Your inference ... not sure they are that organised. But there is also tuberculosis, presumably, given the news yesterday. Or is that too slow? Probably not if one gets a really virulent strain combined with poor food.
Interesting to follow the fantasises of those who really dislike the current government.
They really should just sink the boats like the Greeks, or pay the Libyan Coastguard to enslave the migrant. Like proper Europeans.
Maybe unfair to blame the government for legionella in asylum seekers' accommodation, or for using barges as temporary accommodation. But as they go for cruel performative nonsense on migration they shouldn't expect their mostly justified critics to suddenly discover nuance, when they certainly don't have any.
Why? Didn't they think to flush the system?
That's actually basic. Buy to let landlords have to do it, dammit.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
I agree on most of these (Ramaswamy does have a chance if Trump is unexpectedly unavailable, but 16-1 is too tight).
Christie and Manchin are the ones I'd quibble on. Manchin won't run and I don't see the realistic route in the unlikely event of him doing so. Christie has a minus 30 net approval rating with Republicans, and is only standing for sh1ts and giggles.
Manchin can win the Democratic nomination. It would not be easy, and it requires the stars to align. But unlike Robert "Free Money" Kennedy, he has an actual path to the nomination, and is considering running.
There are a lot of conservative (with a small "c") Democrats out there. There are a lot of Independents who don't like Biden.
Manchin stands against Biden, and comes in a decent second in South Carolina (with RFK nowhere). New Hampshire is next, and Manchin gets a lot of crossover / independent support, winning the State.
Unlikely? Yep.
Possible? Yep.
Also, unlike RFK - who Biden can simply ignore - Manchin is a sitting Democratic Senator. Can he avoid the debate stage against him?
Now: is he a 20-1 shot? Nowhere near. But the odds are 250-1. That's worth two of your earth pounds, even if only to trade out, if and when he announces.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. (snip)
In yet another demo of my almost freaky detachment and fairmindedness, PB's biggest Trump hater (me) would agree with you here.
Trump has wisely avoided too many injudicious facial interventions. Biden's face is tight as a drum, but it actually ages him more.
Biden looks and acts older than he is. He could easily pass for 90.
I think it's more he looks his age. These days everybody over 50 strains to look younger than they are - 70 is the new 25 and all of that nonsense - and so somebody just looking their age is deemed to have let themselves go.
The Presidency ages people pretty hard as well.
I recall people criticising Bush II and Obama for taking too much time off. Even too much exercise! Given that the President is running the government wherever he is, these days, it just seemed sane to me.
Good point. It does, and so it should. US Presidents tend to visibly age at a rate faster than your average person. Trump didn't because he did no work. Just larded around watching tv, playing golf, and talking trash.
A job that kills people is a poorly design job.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Quite. And how is it that Trump apparently did no work and larded around watching TV, playing golf and talking trash, yet is apparently the biggest threat to the world since whatever killed the dinosaurs? He must be exceedingly effective in the zero time he actually spends working.
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
If Biden does make it to his second term and Pope Francis pops his clogs and is replaced by a younger model there is the very real prospect that the Pope is younger than POTUS
I wonder if that has ever happened before?
Ha, Yes! Ronald Reagan and Pope JP2
Interesting question. Pope Pius IX (a pretty young pope) was also younger than Zachary Taylor, and Pope Pius VII was younger than John Adams. Those are the only other ones I can spot, although it's quite close in some cases.
In the UK, Churchill was older than Pope Pius XII, who was Pope throughout Churchill's two periods in office.
Bad form to comment on my own post but too late to edit... perhaps slightly surprisingly, the ill-starred Pope John Paul I was a few months younger than Jim Callaghan (and his successor, John Paul II, was a lot younger).
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. Meanwhile, Biden...
He's pretty incoherent in interviews. I don't see someone in full possession of his faculties. You could say that he was the same 8 years ago, so he may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but he hasn't declined... but he doesn't seem to me to have the same feel for the electorate he once did. He survives on his prior popularity.
Obama was pretty awful when his autocue froze too:
When you're on the campaign trail 24 hours a day, giving speech after speech, you are likely (a) propped up with stimulents, and (b) just reading the autocue. I doubt he was even thinking as he read it. And when he stopped he was "ah fuck, what did I just say"
I've done identical presentations to hundreds of investors. By the thirtieth time, you are completely on autopilot, saying the words, but thinking about a book you read, or how nice a glass of wine would be, or did I leave the backdoor open.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
At that point, of course, only Harris on the Dem side should be less than 500-1
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
At that point, of course, only Harris on the Dem side should be less than 500-1
It probably will happen that way, but again amuses me. At that point who is it who is the counterparty locking their cash up to get a 0.2% return in 7 months time - and why?
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
It's not 100% clear but I think next Presidential election winner is based on projected electoral college votes. Whereas Democratic candidate pays out after the nominating convention.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
My local (where I am now) has offered me a tab. Should I be worried that I drinking too much.
The pub went into adminstration and closed for sometime. A few months ago I was cycling passed when I saw activity and found they were preparing to reopen. I stopped and got invited to the dummy runs prior to the official reopening. Not only did I get some free beer but it now seems I am trusted with a running tab.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
It's not 100% clear but I think next Presidential election winner is based on projected electoral college votes. Whereas Democratic candidate pays out after the nominating convention.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
Ooh that’s a good point. Yes the party candidate markets will settle at the conventions in the summer, whereas the next president market will settle on Jan 20th. Both Trump and Biden could potentially become a cropper in between times.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
At that point, of course, only Harris on the Dem side should be less than 500-1
It probably will happen that way, but again amuses me. At that point who is it who is the counterparty locking their cash up to get a 0.2% return in 7 months time - and why?
He said less than 500-1. It'd be quite a bit less in practice, as the actuarial risk of death for Biden between wrapping up the nomination and the electoral college voting is not negligible (nine months or so for a chap in his 80s).
That price would then gradually drift out as the time Biden needed to survive to the election reduced, so the person laying Harris could cash out as her price drifted out (unless Biden in fact died, which would make it squeaky bum time).
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
At that point, of course, only Harris on the Dem side should be less than 500-1
It probably will happen that way, but again amuses me. At that point who is it who is the counterparty locking their cash up to get a 0.2% return in 7 months time - and why?
You just have to watch an interview with Trump to realise that his age simply does not matter.
There has been no obvious decline in his faculties and he retains all the weird energy he had before. Meanwhile, Biden...
He's pretty incoherent in interviews. I don't see someone in full possession of his faculties. You could say that he was the same 8 years ago, so he may be a few sandwiches short of a picnic, but he hasn't declined... but he doesn't seem to me to have the same feel for the electorate he once did. He survives on his prior popularity.
Obama was pretty awful when his autocue froze too:
When you're on the campaign trail 24 hours a day, giving speech after speech, you are likely (a) propped up with stimulents, and (b) just reading the autocue. I doubt he was even thinking as he read it. And when he stopped he was "ah fuck, what did I just say"
I've done identical presentations to hundreds of investors. By the thirtieth time, you are completely on autopilot, saying the words, but thinking about a book you read, or how nice a glass of wine would be, or did I leave the backdoor open.
Ditto. There is a sweet spot between uncertainty and nervousness, and arrogance and boredom. Those presentations where you have it cracked but are still on your toes are the best ones.
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy: Biden Trump Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here Christie Manchin (maybe)
Have you taken into account inflation/TVM into your calculations?
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
If the alternative is losing money in my bank account...
You can get FSCS-backed 6% return on savings that mature in 12 months (sooner than the election pays out).
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
You may well be right although Biden will probably have the necessary delegates by Super Tuesday (5th March) or thereabouts and, whilst it won't settle on that day, you can essentially trade out.
At that point, of course, only Harris on the Dem side should be less than 500-1
It probably will happen that way, but again amuses me. At that point who is it who is the counterparty locking their cash up to get a 0.2% return in 7 months time - and why?
He said less than 500-1. It'd be quite a bit less in practice, as the actuarial risk of death for Biden between wrapping up the nomination and the electoral college voting is not negligible.
That price would then gradually drift out as the time Biden needed to survive to the election reduced, so the person laying Harris could cash out as her price drifted out (unless Biden in fact died, which would make it squeaky bum time).
Not just death either, there’s scope for medical incapacity, scandal, or voluntary retirement, all of which are outside shots but not zero.
If Trump is definitely ruled out, and the contest is against a Christie or a Ramaswarmy, I think Biden might choose to retire and let his party chose a new candidate.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
It's not 100% clear but I think next Presidential election winner is based on projected electoral college votes. Whereas Democratic candidate pays out after the nominating convention.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
VG point! So in ranking the 48 WH vs the 23 NOM you'd have to balance this against whatever view you have of KH's chances in the general if she were the NOM. The view I keep hearing is she'd lose - steering to NOM as the better bet - but I'm not sure what that's based on exactly.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
It's not 100% clear but I think next Presidential election winner is based on projected electoral college votes. Whereas Democratic candidate pays out after the nominating convention.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
Ooh that’s a good point. Yes the party candidate markets will settle at the conventions in the summer, whereas the next president market will settle on Jan 20th. Both Trump and Biden could potentially become a cropper in between times.
Yes, there could also be value in backing Trump's VP candidate. Scott then looks better value - he's 60-1 for the Presidency, but about 7-1 for VP berth which, if he gets, keeps him in contention. The VP stakes is a bit of a mug's game though, and I'm not that tempted.
My local (where I am now) has offered me a tab. Should I be worried that I drinking too much.
The pub went into adminstration and closed for sometime. A few months ago I was cycling passed when I saw activity and found they were preparing to reopen. I stopped and got invited to the dummy runs prior to the official reopening. Not only did I get some free beer but it now seems I am trusted with a running tab.
Life is rewarding sometimes.
That's very nice! But please don't go down the 'own pewter tankard behind the bar' route. You don't want to be one of 'those'.
So if I don't blow my own horn nobody will - pls see here my blog where I back and tip her (with cogent reasons) at 100 saying she should be no bigger than 33:
Good tip at the time, well done. 23 now is a massive lay.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
Thanks. I have laid her back now for the stake plus a bit. So it's good good.
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
If I was backing Harris, I'd take the 23 on her as being the Dem candidate over 48 to win the election.
It's not 100% clear but I think next Presidential election winner is based on projected electoral college votes. Whereas Democratic candidate pays out after the nominating convention.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
VG point! So in ranking the 48 WH vs the 23 NOM you'd have to balance this against whatever view you have of KH's chances in the general if she were the NOM. The view I keep hearing is she'd lose - steering to NOM as the better bet - but I'm not sure what that's based on exactly.
She's not got good approval ratings, for sure. But, if Biden died in the campaign, I actually think she'd get quite a big bump from that in polling terms. It'd be unprecedented, but you can envisage a rallying round the (new) President in that scenario more than you can the opposite.
When I referred to poor nutrition under HO care earlier, I hadn't realised there were actual cases of scurvy as well as the TB we known about.
Also: "weeks" before the barge is fit for use again. (Which surprises me a bit. Perhaps they just use a slow tester.)
That piece doesn't refer to poor nutrition under HO care, it refers to inadequate screening, strongly implying (as seems somewhat more likely) that the sufferers picked up their conditions before they got to the UK. Catering for asylum seekers in the UK is by companies who are obliged by their contracts to provide fresh fruit at any time of the day.
What I find interesting is the aggression (and frankly sheer length) of this anti-Suella briefing from a 'senior Tory':
“This utter farce follows endless warnings to Home Office ministers about the prospect of health outbreaks, inadequate health screening and wider public health concerns following cases of TB and scurvy in recent weeks in these highly contentious migrant accommodation sites.
“Having created a serious and now deadly migrant housing crisis, it is obvious to all that the Home Secretary has lost all control and authority on the issue of illegal migration.
“She is responsible for this crisis and should be held to account for her irresponsible actions that have brought disease to these sites and now threaten the public health of the local community.
“She should be sacked.”
It reads more like a press release than someone sounding off in frustration to a journalist. Absolutely toxic.
The piece isn't clear either way re scurvy. But it's odd as it shouldn't even exist after a while of decent food, even if it is a prior syndrome.
Edit: I've seen specific reports of some contractors - hotels, anyway - which don't provide even remorely balanced diets.
I think you're jumping to Dickensian treatment as a reason because that's what you want to find. I am sure there have been examples of less than 5-star service in some of the accommodation, it is a state-provided service after all, look at NHS food. That doesn't mean jumping to a conclusion that 'Cruella is giving people scurvy' isn't ludicrous, and frankly deplorable, character assassination.
Vertical Aerospace, founded by Stephen Fitzpatrick, was dealt a blow on Wednesday when a test flight failed in dramatic fashion.
The Bristol-based startup, which is producing a five-seater flying taxi that can reach speeds of up to 200mph, said in a short statement that its prototype had crashed during a test of the “aircraft’s manoeuvrability”.
Announcing Wednesday’s crash to investors, Vertical Aerospace said: “The aircraft was remotely piloted and there were no injuries.
“Our flight test programme is designed to establish the limits of the aircraft’s performance, and the incident occurred during an uncrewed test of the aircraft’s manoeuvrability during a motor failure test scenario, which is a key requirement to progress to crewed operations. We are working closely with the relevant authorities.”
Presumably that’s going to be a full AAIB field investigation, in which case they’re going to be grounded for months at best, and probably out of money. The report will be worth reading though!
Well, at least their testing program has a better moral basis than that of Virgin Galactic.
VG can't fly their vehicles remotely.
In this case they are designed to be. So the only thing lost was a bit of money.
Not entirely sure the damage will buff out, though.
Comments
Looking ravaged and careworn would be a considerable improvement on what he's done to himself.
Sorry, but I think he would be a disastrous MP, and I think none of you are doing him any favours by encouraging him .Maybe as most of you who are anti-Tory you think it amusing. Town council is about where he should be on the Peter Principle from what I can see.
Some the children in the Winston Smith examples were in care because of massive issues with themselves - and not receiving more than money and enablement of self destructive behaviours.
they had "a few conversations" with Sir Humphrey before the "advancing years, without in any way impairing his verbal fluency, disengaged the operation of his mind from the content of his speech,"
Hear, hear! And Jenrick too.
Bush II used Cheney as more than a figure head VP - which upset a lot of people in Washington, who couldn't understand a President not hating his VP and relegate him to doing nothing.
Obama gave Biden less to do - but still more than traditional.
The Presidential Cabinet could be more than figureheads, as well, if the President is so inclined.
Delegation is a part of good leadership.
Near me was such a home for a half dozen kids for a while. It was a nightmare for the neighbours, with vandalism, thefts, drugs, and the police round a couple of times per week until it got closed down after an inspection. The staff made no real attempt to control the kids, it was just a private company profiteering. No doubt these kids are being a nightmare somewhere else now.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-hundreds-drowned-off-the-coast-of-greece
This is interesting IMO. From 1954 to 1968 Abbot Laboratories ran an advertising campaign for their drug Pentothal by sending postcards from unusual and exotic locations around the world to thousands of doctors in the USA, Canada and elsewhere. (It's the sort of thing Adam Curtis would be interested in).
"The postcards and the truth drug
Adam Curtis
Sodium Pentothal is an anaesthetic. But it was also used by both sides in the Cold War as a truth drug in interrogations. It was made by Abbot Laboratories. They used a very strange way to advertise Pentothal. They sent postcards from around the world - the first here is from Rwanda - to doctors in America."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/af0b094e-20e0-3429-bc40-ee3610f6b7e9
"It is interesting to read the messages,
each of which varies but carries the same theme about ‘the
natural choice of Pentothal as an intravenous anaesthetic’.
All the postcards except one are signed ‘abbott’. Stamps and
franking of the card often lead to interesting stories; for
instance, one describes Lundy Island, England as ‘a place
without Pentothal’. In 1961, out of 286 000 mailings from a
town called Wilkes in Australian Antarctic Territory, 280
000 were from Abbott. This venture resulted in local mailing
restrictions. The 1958 Abbott mailing from Punta Arenas,
Chile, took 8 months to complete as there was only one part
time postal worker there, working 1 h a day with a hand
cancel stamper. Baghdad had to be dropped off the mailing
list because of bureaucracy and red tape."
https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912(17)35053-5/pdf
Someone tell me I am wrong, please?"
I won't, but I would like to see what a life actuary would add to that analysis. Trump is obese, eats a poor diet, gets little exercise, and is getting less and less social support from those around him. (I think the actuary would also want to look at how long their parents and grandparents lived.)
Biden has had two brain operations, but takes better care of himself than Trump does. People laughed when he fell off a bicycle, but I doubt very much that Trump is even able to ride a bicycle.
Here's a relevant 2019 Politico article, with some data, and some discussion: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/20/joe-biden-old-age-1468635
(For the record: I am between the two in age, but take better care of myself than Trump, and, probably, Biden.)
Attitudes to Trump even amongst a collection of the allegedly sensible are completely loony.
Also: "weeks" before the barge is fit for use again. (Which surprises me a bit. Perhaps they just use a slow tester.)
I wonder if that has ever happened before?
The barred crimes you can lose the right to vote for include: voter fraud, murder, rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy, armed robbery, extortion, felony bad check, felony shoplifting, larceny, receiving stolen property, robbery, timber larceny, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, statutory rape, carjacking or larceny under lease or rental agreement.
Numbers:
Population: 2.95 million.
Last Presidential Election in Mississippi:
Electorate: 2.19 million
Votes cast: 1.314 million.
Turnout: 60.6%
*Current* prison population: ~20,000
Meaningful impact?
https://www.npr.org/2023/08/04/1192295228/mississippi-felon-voting-law-blocked
What I find interesting is the aggression (and frankly sheer length) of this anti-Suella briefing from a 'senior Tory':
“This utter farce follows endless warnings to Home Office ministers about the prospect of health outbreaks, inadequate health screening and wider public health concerns following cases of TB and scurvy in recent weeks in these highly contentious migrant accommodation sites.
“Having created a serious and now deadly migrant housing crisis, it is obvious to all that the Home Secretary has lost all control and authority on the issue of illegal migration.
“She is responsible for this crisis and should be held to account for her irresponsible actions that have brought disease to these sites and now threaten the public health of the local community.
“She should be sacked.”
It reads more like a press release than someone sounding off in frustration to a journalist. Absolutely toxic.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-truth-is-tory-voters-are-onboard-for-net-zero-what-s-really-worrying-them-is-how-we-get-there/ar-AA1f5iGa?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=349a23fda9744fe99b4ebb13a4a0cf33&ei=50
Biden 1.36
Newsom 13
M Obama 23
Kennedy 25
Harris 27
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.178163685
(During his time in office, life expectancies rose for all major groups, and the US did something unusual for a developed country in recent decades: Total Fertility rate rose above 2.1 in a couple of years, while he was in office.)
It's a simple trick to get a photo of just about anyone that makes them look mad, sick etc - modern digital camera, shoot non-stop until you get the momentary expression you want.
Almost every Tory supporter here (past or present) backs net zero, thinking it needs to be achieved by replacing dirty technologies with clean ones to allow clean growth.
Many [not all] left-wingers here want to see lower consumption/redistribution instead of tackling climate emissions via clean technologies.
As for the "Cabinet could be more than figureheads" argument, well the better ones usually are (for example, many in FDR's cabinets).
However, NO president has or (fearless forecast) is ever gonna go for a UK-style cabinet.
Edit: I've seen specific reports of some contractors - hotels, anyway - which don't provide even remorely balanced diets.
One parishioner questioned the morality of housing two children for potentially 10 years in a £1.5m property (which up here is pretty much a mansion) only for them to be passed on (which is what happens) at age 17 to some form of adult care in much less fancy surroundings. Another questioned what financial input was sought from the delinquent parents, e.g. can we put a charge on their house/assets? This produced a vacant look from the representative. That will be none then.
I can respect those I disagree with, but not those who endorse violence in politics. That's not suitable for a constituency MP in any Party.
In the UK, Churchill was older than Pope Pius XII, who was Pope throughout Churchill's two periods in office.
RFK (massive sell)
Vivek Ramaswamy
Michelle Obama
Those three have collectively a 15% chance of being next President. In reality, the number should be 1%. Maybe.
Buy:
Biden
Trump
Harris (yes, she's shit, but there's a very clear path to the Presidency): I think she's a massive buy here
Christie
Manchin (maybe)
Just ask @SandyRentool
At current inflation rates laying someone at 2% is a real money-loser even if you're right.
Sadly for me at current inflation rates, I don't see much value in any of them. Except Harris (for value, not an expectation she'll get it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU is one of several classics of that genre. If a Republican President had done that the sky would have fallen in on him.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/11/manchin-democrat-party-biden-ira-event
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/11/stephen-fitzpatrick-ovo-energy-flying-taxi-crash-cotswolds/
Vertical Aerospace, founded by Stephen Fitzpatrick, was dealt a blow on Wednesday when a test flight failed in dramatic fashion.
The Bristol-based startup, which is producing a five-seater flying taxi that can reach speeds of up to 200mph, said in a short statement that its prototype had crashed during a test of the “aircraft’s manoeuvrability”.
Announcing Wednesday’s crash to investors, Vertical Aerospace said: “The aircraft was remotely piloted and there were no injuries.
“Our flight test programme is designed to establish the limits of the aircraft’s performance, and the incident occurred during an uncrewed test of the aircraft’s manoeuvrability during a motor failure test scenario, which is a key requirement to progress to crewed operations. We are working closely with the relevant authorities.”
Presumably that’s going to be a full AAIB field investigation, in which case they’re going to be grounded for months at best, and probably out of money. The report will be worth reading though!
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3724721#Comment_3724721
Christie and Manchin are the ones I'd quibble on. Manchin won't run and I don't see the realistic route in the unlikely event of him doing so. Christie has a minus 30 net approval rating with Republicans, and is only standing for sh1ts and giggles.
There are a lot of conservative (with a small "c") Democrats out there. There are a lot of Independents who don't like Biden.
Manchin stands against Biden, and comes in a decent second in South Carolina (with RFK nowhere). New Hampshire is next, and Manchin gets a lot of crossover / independent support, winning the State.
Unlikely? Yep.
Possible? Yep.
Also, unlike RFK - who Biden can simply ignore - Manchin is a sitting Democratic Senator. Can he avoid the debate stage against him?
Now: is he a 20-1 shot? Nowhere near. But the odds are 250-1. That's worth two of your earth pounds, even if only to trade out, if and when he announces.
Harris is the value of the five mentioned, she’s the incumbent if Biden is hit by a bus tomorrow. MObama and Kennedy have no chance.
LAB: 48% (+1)
CON: 24% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (-1)
REF: 6% (-1)
GRN: 6% (+1)
via @Omnisis, 10 - 11 Aug
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1690028926137929728?t=7eZVCMPYYhLV9CSESb1tJA&s=19
So "stop the boats week" has gone well...
Any other leader would be 20 points ahead. BJO fans please explain.
So why lay RFK Jr at 19 on Betfair, before commission?
Yes, RFK should be a lay, but its not really a good investment in my eyes to do it?
When you're on the campaign trail 24 hours a day, giving speech after speech, you are likely (a) propped up with stimulents, and (b) just reading the autocue. I doubt he was even thinking as he read it. And when he stopped he was "ah fuck, what did I just say"
I've done identical presentations to hundreds of investors. By the thirtieth time, you are completely on autopilot, saying the words, but thinking about a book you read, or how nice a glass of wine would be, or did I leave the backdoor open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums
Agree on Harris. She's value at 50 simply because there's a route. RFK is a great sell at 19 but was an even greater one at the previous almost unbelievable 12.
But the best sell of all imo is Donald Trump at 3.5. I've added to my Big Short at that.
So, if Biden died between the nominating convention and the electoral college voting (a non-negligible risk given his age) and Democrats won the election, a bet on Harris as Presidential election winner would pay out, but as Democratic candidate would not.
The pub went into adminstration and closed for sometime. A few months ago I was cycling passed when I saw activity and found they were preparing to reopen. I stopped and got invited to the dummy runs prior to the official reopening. Not only did I get some free beer but it now seems I am trusted with a running tab.
Life is rewarding sometimes.
That price would then gradually drift out as the time Biden needed to survive to the election reduced, so the person laying Harris could cash out as her price drifted out (unless Biden in fact died, which would make it squeaky bum time).
If Trump is definitely ruled out, and the contest is against a Christie or a Ramaswarmy, I think Biden might choose to retire and let his party chose a new candidate.
https://vimeo.com/389022052
https://twitter.com/guardianopinion/status/1689957723058929665
Does he really want to replace a deer problem with a wolf problem? Deer don’t generally end up in back gardens, having fights with dogs and children.
VG can't fly their vehicles remotely.
In this case they are designed to be. So the only thing lost was a bit of money.
Not entirely sure the damage will buff out, though.
https://www.flightglobal.com/aerospace/vertical-faces-setback-after-vx4-prototype-crashes-during-flight-testing/154475.article