Kamala Harris has a far greater chance of beating Trump than a severely impaired Joe Biden. Some of his more outrageous supporters don't seem to be handling it at all well. But it's a phony war at the moment - seeing them in a real debate will be interesting.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
That's the cat lady vote lost then.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
8.7% of the population in Pittsburgh are single catladies - looks like a fairly decent stat:
#3 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (8.7%) Pittsburgh is a bustling city, so maybe women here prefer cats because they can be left alone more. Or maybe it’s because they make great lap warmers during those cold Eastern winters. https://iheartcats.com/top-10-cities-for-single-women-with-cats/
(I make that about 27,000.
JD Vance is headed for "How can I BFONT myself? Let me count the ways... )
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
"Caving in" isn't a problem when it is demonstrably the right thing to do, morally, as policy and possibly saves money in the long run. The problem is that they haven't invested in explaining to the public why a popular but wrong policy needs changing.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
There’s been a clear change in tone and emphasis by the govt over this today even compared to Rachel Reeves interview on Kuenssberg yesterday.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
A huge improvement, then, if your last sentence is correct.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
That's the cat lady vote lost then.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
Think you can add large shares of the dog lady vote that. Ditto hamster, parrot, fish, etc., etc. ladies.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
A huge improvement, then, if your last sentence is correct.
No improvement at all. Just weak govt incapable of asserting its majority.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, possibly.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
Bingo. Hilarious taking a tour of Pro-Democratic echo chambers convincing themselves Trump's campaign is upset/caught off guard by this change in candidate. If they desperately wanted Joe they wouldn't have accepted the weird early debate and knocked him out like that. She's ghastly and after eulogising Joe today is going to need to explain why this living saint is fit to lead the free world for 6 months despite them forcing him out against his will given he's clearly not compus mentis.
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
There's no reason to criminalise residential tenancies.
Just have enough construction that would-be landlords who desire to charge too high a rent or have too dilapidated a property find that nobody is interested in being a tenant as they'd rather live somewhere cheaper/better quality instead.
Its the shortage of buildings that empowers landlords to charge what they want, in whatever quality they want, as there is no alternative.
Not only that, if criminalise residential tenancies how do kids manage to move out from their parents even if they have a job offer. Even if you limit it private landlords you still have a problem because social housing is given out on the basis of need. 2 people working with a single child will often find on the council housing list that they are further down the list at the end of the year than the beginning because people are inserted above them as being more in need.
The Hundred seems to have broken the calendar even more than last year.
The Blast Quarter final is on the 3rd September. The 3rd September.
Why not have the Hundred in April, or May?
Some may say, why have it at all.
I am starting to come round to this line of thinking after them ruining the calendar for a second year in a row.
I get there's not an Ashes this year but the ECB have basically said fuck off to the Blast and One Day Cup.
They said it to the county championship quite a while back.
The County Championship has been essentially forgotten for ages, the turnout at the smaller grounds is abysmal. Even at the Oval on a weekend it's not even half full. So something had to be done about that - but fucking it off more is not what I had in mind.
Perhaps reduce it to fewer games and have it in the middle of the summer. The games are at such stupid times now.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
There’s been a clear change in tone and emphasis by the govt over this today even compared to Rachel Reeves interview on Kuenssberg yesterday.
It was mentioned here today by (I think) Mr Bedfordshire, that if Reeves got too incontinent with her spending, the bond markets would 'ave her. I'd be very surprised if this happened. It never happens with spending.
I've heard it said that Larry Fink of Black Rock deliberately hammered bonds until Truss was forced out. You can tell me that Larry isn't interested in politics, but I don't think he retains George Osborne for his good looks.
In any case, if Labour does overspend and they put it on the credit card, and Trussite turbulence fails to happen, it will certainly lend credence to her belief that the events leading to her resignation were an orchestrated campaign.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
That's the cat lady vote lost then.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
Think you can add large shares of the dog lady vote that. Ditto hamster, parrot, fish, etc., etc. ladies.
It's deeply offensive (and likely hurtful) to women who don't or can't have children. And just a plain odd thing to say.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
You appear to be forgetting Kamala Harris's performance in her first POTUS debate, when she scored a significant hit against . . . wait for it . . . Joe Biden.
Well-remember the reaction to THAT on the day after, especially by Democratic women.
Was a factor in Biden choosing her as his running mate; she filled the bill as a Black woman, but wasn't the only one available; note that carrying California was NOT a consideration in 2020, nor of course in 2024.
Rachel Reeves @RachelReevesMP · 2h Today I am beginning the process to appoint a Covid Corruption Commissioner to get back what is owed to the British people.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
Bingo. Hilarious taking a tour of Pro-Democratic echo chambers convincing themselves Trump's campaign is upset/caught off guard by this change in candidate. If they desperately wanted Joe they wouldn't have accepted the weird early debate and knocked him out like that. She's ghastly and after eulogising Joe today is going to need to explain why this living saint is fit to lead the free world for 6 months despite them forcing him out against his will given he's clearly not compus mentis.
I do think it's highly likely Trump will win, because now Biden's been forced out the focus will shift to the Dem cover-up and Kamala will be in it up to her neck.
But that said nothing is guaranteed in politics and at least she might be able to give Donald a run for his money (something poor Joe Biden wouldn't have been able to do)
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
There’s been a clear change in tone and emphasis by the govt over this today even compared to Rachel Reeves interview on Kuenssberg yesterday.
It was mentioned here today by (I think) Mr Bedfordshire, that if Reeves got too incontinent with her spending, the bond markets would 'ave her. I'd be very surprised if this happened. It never happens with spending.
I've heard it said that Larry Fink of Black Rock deliberately hammered bonds until Truss was forced out. You can tell me that Larry isn't interested in politics, but I don't think he retains George Osborne for his good looks.
In any case, if Labour does overspend and they put it on the credit card, and Trussite turbulence fails to happen, it will certainly lend credence to her belief that the events leading to her resignation were an orchestrated campaign.
I spent quite a lot of my life in the bond markets. I can honestly say that the whole Truss/Kwarteng thing struck me as complete stupidity even before I saw that everyone else, everyone else's wives, and everyone else that everyone else had ever met agreed.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
That's the cat lady vote lost then.
Wait until Vance finds out there's tens of thousands of them in swing state Pennsylvania.
Think you can add large shares of the dog lady vote that. Ditto hamster, parrot, fish, etc., etc. ladies.
It's deeply offensive (and likely hurtful) to women who don't or can't have children. And just a plain odd thing to say.
Just as offensive - judging from my own personal circle - for women who DO have children.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
Bingo. Hilarious taking a tour of Pro-Democratic echo chambers convincing themselves Trump's campaign is upset/caught off guard by this change in candidate. If they desperately wanted Joe they wouldn't have accepted the weird early debate and knocked him out like that. She's ghastly and after eulogising Joe today is going to need to explain why this living saint is fit to lead the free world for 6 months despite them forcing him out against his will given he's clearly not compus mentis.
The US should have had a female president by now.
Indeed Obama should have waited and let Hillary serve a term or two before seeking the job.
But Harris as the first female president would feel wrong. She hasn't demonstrated her leadership capabilities. She hasn't been tested through a full primary process. She is weak and ineffectual.
They'll have to make a new offering to younger generations?
File under "things that won't happen".
It will if they're ever to get back into power. A successful party appeals to all generations - The Blessed Margaret appealed to millions of aspirational younger voters with her Right To Buy policy, for example.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Rachel Reeves @RachelReevesMP · 2h Today I am beginning the process to appoint a Covid Corruption Commissioner to get back what is owed to the British people.
The work of change has begun.
===
Chris Grayling is at a lose end.
We shall find out if Labour is serious or whether this is just another Starmer/Mandelson political stunt if they appoint Lord Agnew, who resigned as a Tory minister over failure to prevent Covid fraud. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60117513
Kamala Harris has a far greater chance of beating Trump than a severely impaired Joe Biden. Some of his more outrageous supporters don't seem to be handling it at all well. But it's a phony war at the moment - seeing them in a real debate will be interesting.
I am massively relieved. I have been posting frequently since THAT debate that there is no way Biden can win, so now I am at least a tad more hopeful.
Rachel Reeves @RachelReevesMP · 2h Today I am beginning the process to appoint a Covid Corruption Commissioner to get back what is owed to the British people.
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
There’s been a clear change in tone and emphasis by the govt over this today even compared to Rachel Reeves interview on Kuenssberg yesterday.
It was mentioned here today by (I think) Mr Bedfordshire, that if Reeves got too incontinent with her spending, the bond markets would 'ave her. I'd be very surprised if this happened. It never happens with spending.
I've heard it said that Larry Fink of Black Rock deliberately hammered bonds until Truss was forced out. You can tell me that Larry isn't interested in politics, but I don't think he retains George Osborne for his good looks.
In any case, if Labour does overspend and they put it on the credit card, and Trussite turbulence fails to happen, it will certainly lend credence to her belief that the events leading to her resignation were an orchestrated campaign.
Blackrock are politician, Larry Fink is political. They have been using their stakes in companies as a lever to enforce compliance with certain Blackrock diktats. He’s rolling back from it now.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
Bingo. Hilarious taking a tour of Pro-Democratic echo chambers convincing themselves Trump's campaign is upset/caught off guard by this change in candidate. If they desperately wanted Joe they wouldn't have accepted the weird early debate and knocked him out like that. She's ghastly and after eulogising Joe today is going to need to explain why this living saint is fit to lead the free world for 6 months despite them forcing him out against his will given he's clearly not compus mentis.
I do think it's highly likely Trump will win, because now Biden's been forced out the focus will shift to the Dem cover-up and Kamala will be in it up to her neck.
But that said nothing is guaranteed in politics and at least she might be able to give Donald a run for his money (something poor Joe Biden wouldn't have been able to do)
Still think this stuff widely circulating will be a big problem for Harris. This on X.
Never forget that when Kamala Harris was 29-years-old, she started an AFFAIR with 60-year-old Willie Brown, he was a married California house speaker, Mayor of San Francisco and one of the most powerful in California
He bought Kamala expensive gifts like a BMW and appointed her to two influential positions. He named Kamala to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that paid $72,000 a year and also appointed her to the state's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a lucrative position that put another $97,088 a year in her pockets. Brown later faced an FBI corruption investigation for handing out lucrative city contracts and appointments to friends and political allies.
Even after he dumped Kamala in 1995, he still continued to use his influence to promote her career, "I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco." - Brown
Harris was elected California's attorney general in 2010 with massive help from Willie and when she ran for United States Senate in 2016, Brown called on her likely opponent, Antonio Villaraigosa, to stay out of the race
The 2 child benefit cap issue is not going away. Lead article on the local news is about it.
It’s a real test for Starmer and his govt.
Do they hold firm or cave in.
They should hold firm. Good idea or not caving so quickly would not speak well of their ability to make tough decisions in the face of opposition despite a massive majority.
And here we go. The rolling back. The education secretary is now saying the govt will consider this. It is no longer a no. The lobbying looks like being successful even though the policy is overwhelmingly supported.
SKS to cave in to a handful of labour, Greens and SNP MPs but to find a way to do it and not lose face. They will ‘find’ the money somewhere.
If they do cave it doesn’t really augur well for the govt. All it needs to get them to fold is a well funded lobbying campaign and a few moaning MPs.
We are moving from governance by Daily Mail editorial to governance by centre left lobbyist demand.
They were strongly against it when it came in, and before the election, said many times that if they had the money they'd look at abolishing it.
It's never been a "no", it's always been about the money, and many commentators said before the election that it may even go in the very first budget.
There’s been a clear change in tone and emphasis by the govt over this today even compared to Rachel Reeves interview on Kuenssberg yesterday.
It was mentioned here today by (I think) Mr Bedfordshire, that if Reeves got too incontinent with her spending, the bond markets would 'ave her. I'd be very surprised if this happened. It never happens with spending.
I've heard it said that Larry Fink of Black Rock deliberately hammered bonds until Truss was forced out. You can tell me that Larry isn't interested in politics, but I don't think he retains George Osborne for his good looks.
In any case, if Labour does overspend and they put it on the credit card, and Trussite turbulence fails to happen, it will certainly lend credence to her belief that the events leading to her resignation were an orchestrated campaign.
I spent quite a lot of my life in the bond markets. I can honestly say that the whole Truss/Kwarteng thing struck me as complete stupidity even before I saw that everyone else, everyone else's wives, and everyone else that everyone else had ever met agreed.
Truss was not stitched up.
If you were an intelligent watcher of the bond markets, you'd have realised that the Bank's QT programme announced the previous day was set to cost the exchequer between £80bn and £100bn, whereas Truss's catastrophic minibudget had a projected cost of £43bn altogether, with very modest tax cuts, many of which would probably (like CT) have been cost neutral or even a net benefit.
I think Truss was done up like a kipper. However, she was naive enough walk into the bear trap, so deserves limited sympathy.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
You appear to be forgetting Kamala Harris's performance in her first POTUS debate, when she scored a significant hit against . . . wait for it . . . Joe Biden.
Well-remember the reaction to THAT on the day after, especially by Democratic women.
Was a factor in Biden choosing her as his running mate; she filled the bill as a Black woman, but wasn't the only one available; note that carrying California was NOT a consideration in 2020, nor of course in 2024.
Of course Harris didn't even make it to the California primary. And Biden lost it to Sanders.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
Bingo. Hilarious taking a tour of Pro-Democratic echo chambers convincing themselves Trump's campaign is upset/caught off guard by this change in candidate. If they desperately wanted Joe they wouldn't have accepted the weird early debate and knocked him out like that. She's ghastly and after eulogising Joe today is going to need to explain why this living saint is fit to lead the free world for 6 months despite them forcing him out against his will given he's clearly not compus mentis.
I do think it's highly likely Trump will win, because now Biden's been forced out the focus will shift to the Dem cover-up and Kamala will be in it up to her neck.
But that said nothing is guaranteed in politics and at least she might be able to give Donald a run for his money (something poor Joe Biden wouldn't have been able to do)
Still think this stuff widely circulating will be a big problem for Harris. This on X.
Never forget that when Kamala Harris was 29-years-old, she started an AFFAIR with 60-year-old Willie Brown, he was a married California house speaker, Mayor of San Francisco and one of the most powerful in California
He bought Kamala expensive gifts like a BMW and appointed her to two influential positions. He named Kamala to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that paid $72,000 a year and also appointed her to the state's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a lucrative position that put another $97,088 a year in her pockets. Brown later faced an FBI corruption investigation for handing out lucrative city contracts and appointments to friends and political allies.
Even after he dumped Kamala in 1995, he still continued to use his influence to promote her career, "I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco." - Brown
Harris was elected California's attorney general in 2010 with massive help from Willie and when she ran for United States Senate in 2016, Brown called on her likely opponent, Antonio Villaraigosa, to stay out of the race
Well, given the skeletons Trumps got in his not so closed closet, I'm not sure targeting Harris for "sleaze" will necessarily work to the Republican's advantage...
Rumours also circulating on social media about the whereabouts of Joe Biden and why there is no sign of him. This from hedge fund manager Bill Ackman.
One would think that a letter to the American people from the president announcing his decision to step aside would not be signed using a digital signature and would be accompanied by a photo op and a scheduled conference in the morning that followed.
Instead we have a digitally signed letter released on the president’s @X account, an account we know that is run by a staffer, no photo, and no live scheduled address to the American people.
If I were China, I would invade Taiwan tomorrow. 4:13 AM · Jul 22, 2024 · 4M Views
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
Mass market consumer goods to income generating asset isn't a good comparison.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
Houses are not fungible, but discrete assets.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
You may not care which unit of TV, or phone, or tablet, or computer, or car you have but many do.
And many don't care what house they have, they just want any house.
Indeed many use websites like Rightmove etc to look at different housing options precisely because they are fungible.
Very few people care which one of a *run* they have. You you care if you have the 723rd or the 724th TV made on a given day? Do you even know?
But a house is different. Proximity to work? School? Partners work? Parents? Does it have a parking space? Different houses are different. Compromises are made.
Right move is a comparison site - fungibilty is a totally different concept
Why would President Biden announce such a momentous and historic decision on a Sunday afternoon on a social media platform? The letter he posted was not written on White House stationary. And his signature appeared to be photoshopped. Also, Biden's signature was underlined and typically he does not underline his name.
His staff only found out once the message had been posted on X. And Cabinet members were notified by the Chief of Staff -- not Biden.
The last time the public saw Biden he feebly walked down the stairs of Air Force One and had to be physically assisted into the presidential limo. He has not been seen in public since.
How do we know Biden wrote that letter? And how do we know that Biden posted the letter on his X page? There wasn't even an official White House photograph of the moment.
His brother, Frank Biden, told CBS News that health "absolutely" was the deciding factor in the decision. And then he told CBS “Selfishly, I will have him back to enjoy whatever time he has left."
Is President Biden still alive? Is he awake and alert? Is he in command of his faculties? With respect, we need to see proof of life. 4:06 AM · Jul 22, 2024 · 2.7M Views
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
To whom? There’s only a finite number of people in the country. As the number of properties increase in ratio to the population, the price you can get for sale or rent will drop.
This is how it works in countries which don’t have housing shortages. Numbers of properties stay empty because the market has cleared.
Property is only a one way bet, when there is a large, sustained shortage.
I'm really convinced that Harris will win nomination and win against Trump. Just passed a lady talking on the phone to a friend about Harris - she's caught people's imagination I think! (Incredibly tiny subsample klaxon!) A life of betting poverty may lie ahead! (I never top up my betting account, and whilst very far from all in, it'd be a big dent)
I’m not convinced she will win but I am hopeful she will.
I’ve said before I don’t get the antipathy towards her. Perhaps after the campaign I will.
She was woeful when she sought the nomination before. She struggles when speaking in public falling back on empty repeated phrases with no meaning.
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
You appear to be forgetting Kamala Harris's performance in her first POTUS debate, when she scored a significant hit against . . . wait for it . . . Joe Biden.
Well-remember the reaction to THAT on the day after, especially by Democratic women.
Was a factor in Biden choosing her as his running mate; she filled the bill as a Black woman, but wasn't the only one available; note that carrying California was NOT a consideration in 2020, nor of course in 2024.
Of course Harris didn't even make it to the California primary. And Biden lost it to Sanders.
Where is the real talent on the US centre left?
Or the centre right?
I suspect the answer is that the real talent just doesn't want anything much to do with elected office. The actual power and money is elsewhere, and the process of getting elected increasingly resembles that scene in the Shawshank Redemption only with no redemption.
The old style public servants are a dying breed, Biden was possibly the last. So we're left with possibly decent but ultimately bureaucratic types (Leslie Knope if we're lucky), or ego trippers like DJT.
If it's a supply problem, I don't know how that gets solved.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
What people can afford is part of the market. Rents go up when housing benefit increases, farmers are paid less when they receive subsidies etc You cannot separate the relative affordability of something from the market price.
Of course you can, if supply exceeds demand and if supply can be easily created.
My first HDTV I bought cost over £1000, in then-money, which would be well over two grand in today's prices. Today you can get a bigger and better one for £200 in today-money.
Why hasn't the price of TVs gone up as we can afford to pay more? Why has it gone down instead? Because there's healthy competition in that market, but there is not in the housing market.
There's no reason why house prices can't go down by the same amount as TV prices have. If the barriers to entry to the market were removed so any skilled tradesperson could just build a house for anyone who wants one, rather than need an army of lawyers and a forest of paperwork first to get "permission" to do so, then they would come down.
Mass market consumer goods to income generating asset isn't a good comparison.
That's the mistake in your thinking, both are consumer goods. Consumers want a roof over their head and a screen to watch shows on.
If there's sufficient construction of homes then competition exists just the same as competition exists for any other good.
Both are assets generating incomes for those who own them who want to sell them/let them, but only if consumers wish to do so - which if there's sufficient competition then consumers have other alternatives instead.
Houses are not fungible, but discrete assets.
I don’t care which unit of a TV manufacturing run I have. I do care about the house
You may not care which unit of TV, or phone, or tablet, or computer, or car you have but many do.
And many don't care what house they have, they just want any house.
Indeed many use websites like Rightmove etc to look at different housing options precisely because they are fungible.
Very few people care which one of a *run* they have. You you care if you have the 723rd or the 724th TV made on a given day? Do you even know?
But a house is different. Proximity to work? School? Partners work? Parents? Does it have a parking space? Different houses are different. Compromises are made.
Right move is a comparison site - fungibilty is a totally different concept
Speaking of comparisons, you're not comparing like for like.
Proximity to work/school/etc are issues if you're looking at different homes in different areas. Just as if you're looking at different makes/models of a device.
However just as whether its one of a run of devices, a run of like-for-like homes can be very interchangeable. Whether you get plot 7, plot 8 or plot 147 of the same development make little difference to those things you mentioned if they're of the same spec. And if one is unavailable people will happily substitute for what is available.
When we bought our home there were three houses of the exact same spec, on the exact same development, that were available, including our next door neighbour, the other half of our semi. We could choose any of those three, of the same spec, in the same practical location, for the same price.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
And weirdly, higher rates of overcrowding and roughly similar house prices (relative to incomes).
I assume they have a more extreme version of superheated demand in the cities, second home ownership in the countryside.
House prices are absurd even in places with loads of room like Canada and Australia. It's because of low interest rates meaning people buy to higher multiples of income.
Yep. The notion it's all about lack of supply is false. The many years of cheap money have contributed greatly to today's high house prices.
How would an excess of supply not lead to a fall in prices?
Yes, higher supply should depress prices, I'm just saying it's not all about that.
If supply exceeds demand, then prices will fall to clear the demand. and you'll have surplus housing. You may find people building and buying more ten bedroom mansions, but not many.
The reason people pay lots for houses is scarcity.
I know it is hard to imagine, but you could have a situation where you *could* borrow a 500K, but the house you want actually costs less than that....
Yes, yes, and a yes for the road - higher supply leads to lower prices. Got that. Tick.
I'm making a different point. Which is that our high house prices are not all because of lack of supply. The long period of cheap money has also contributed.
The cheap money era *enabled* the housing market to continue going up, rather than hitting a ceiling of financing earlier. We are now seeing some evidence of that ceiling, now - people can't borrow enough, even at historically low rates, to afford the prices.
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. Lack of supply is one cause of our high house prices, this is another one - several years of low interest rates.
If we hadn't had the fucked up housing market, the cheap money wouldn't have been an issue. People would have been buying houses for far less than they could theoretically borrow.
It would have been less of an issue, yes, but still an issue. Those long years of ultra-low interest rates are a material cause of our sky-high property prices. But there's some good news. That the cheap money era is over will act as a dampener on prices for the foreseeable future. Rampant house price inflation is now less likely.
Good point, apart from the inconvenient fact that your claim is not true.
House prices surged when demand went up but supply did not under Blair and Brown before interest rates fell.
Since then prices have relatively stabilised as construction has roughly kept pace with demand but not increased past demand which is what we need to reverse the unaffordable price rise.
We need years of supply increasing faster than demand. Simply raising interest rates won't do that.
Higher rates and limiting mortgages would simply mean that house prices stay high permanently.
It wouldn’t deal with the problem. That there aren’t enough properties.
Especially since most buy to let landlords are cash purchasers without a mortgage anyway, so mortgage rates doesn't affect them.
It's locked in massive wealth inequality. Combined with insanely high saving rates during COVID (versus scraping by on furlough payments) it's a disaster.
Even if you build millions of houses, what's to stop the minted buying then all up and renting them out?
One of the scandals in Birmingham is the thousand flats in Perry Barr built in 2022 and still empty. People are willing to buy them (with a mortgage) for £180k but lenders aren't willing to value them above £130k. In the end, they're all going to go to cash buyers who will rent them out or put them on AirBnB. The govt needs to do something soon to make sure young people can own homes like the previous generations could.
Now we're getting somewhere, thank you my friend.
The "why don't we build, build, build?" brigade clearly don't understand what's really going on in housing. Putting spades in the ground isn't the problem - putting keys in the front doors is.
The absurdity of having so much empty newbuild at a time when we are told demand is unprecedented is the absurdity of market driven economics.
That’s nothing to do with a market. I would suspect that someone is trying to avoid the flats selling at £130k - because that would crystallise a lower return (or even a loss) on the project.
Imagine a large town or small city that makes the world a better place by criminalising residential tenancies. Fairly well-off families would immediately snap up properties from ex-landlords, and their kids would get rent-free housing even if they are bone idle. Aspiring young workers would get nothing and in the future they would instead move to the next town over.
The history of rent control, where it was used to materially lower prices, is uniformly miserable.
Ron Filipkowski @RonFilipkowski JD Vance says that Kamala Harris is a “childless cat lady” who is “miserable” with her life because she didn’t have children, and that not having children means that she doesn’t have “a direct stake” in America. Story.
Despicable comments . Vance really is a loathsome cxnt .
And Vance's party is trying to remove access to IVF, meaning there will be more childless women and couples.
Trump will regret the day he chose Vance.
We know the Donald is ruled by whims so could he unchoose him?
I suppose he could at this moment, but once the nominations have been put to the states my understanding is that it wouldn't be possible to. And they have to start going in in the next few weeks.
See my previous post on this.
As for point you raise re: state ballot deadlines, note that general election voters will be voting NOT (directly) for the candidates listed for POTUS and VP on each ticket, but rather for Electors. Who are free (effectively) to vote for ANYBODY.
So IF the RN Committee named someone other than JD Vance for VP, at DJT's request, the Trump electors (legitimate ones that is) would almost certainly vote that way.
My understanding is that isn't true of every state. Weren't there several would-be faithless electors in 2016 who were simply switched out?
Although how that would hold in a change of nomination I'll admit I don't know. After all, it's never actually happened.
Comments
#3 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (8.7%)
Pittsburgh is a bustling city, so maybe women here prefer cats because they can be left alone more. Or maybe it’s because they make great lap warmers during those cold Eastern winters.
https://iheartcats.com/top-10-cities-for-single-women-with-cats/
(I make that about 27,000.
JD Vance is headed for "How can I BFONT myself? Let me count the ways... )
HOWEVER the Age of Miracles (!) hath NOT passed . . .
Her track record of running the borders will define her administrative capability as being utterly lacking.
Her track record as a lawyer puts many off.
They need an open debate not an annointing.
She is not fit for high office.
It's funny, I was just pondering the matter when all prices down disappeared in front of my eyes.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, possibly.
BUT in a Bronx bar OR Epping pub? And talk about yer Odd Couple!
The Blast Quarter final is on the 3rd September. The 3rd September.
Why not have the Hundred in April, or May?
So all to do with her racial heritage and her sex and nothing to do with her character and performance in office.
No wonder US politics is such a toxic mess.
I get there's not an Ashes this year but the ECB have basically said fuck off to the Blast and One Day Cup.
If they want to shore up Arizona I think they could go for Mark Kelly
Perhaps reduce it to fewer games and have it in the middle of the summer. The games are at such stupid times now.
I've heard it said that Larry Fink of Black Rock deliberately hammered bonds until Truss was forced out. You can tell me that Larry isn't interested in politics, but I don't think he retains George Osborne for his good looks.
In any case, if Labour does overspend and they put it on the credit card, and Trussite turbulence fails to happen, it will certainly lend credence to her belief that the events leading to her resignation were an orchestrated campaign.
And verily; life is bon
https://x.com/b_schaffner/status/1815217515892445250?t=ofUAUORbKkJI2rFcx50oUA&s=19
Well-remember the reaction to THAT on the day after, especially by Democratic women.
Was a factor in Biden choosing her as his running mate; she filled the bill as a Black woman, but wasn't the only one available; note that carrying California was NOT a consideration in 2020, nor of course in 2024.
@RachelReevesMP
·
2h
Today I am beginning the process to appoint a Covid Corruption Commissioner to get back what is owed to the British people.
The work of change has begun.
===
Chris Grayling is at a lose end.
But that said nothing is guaranteed in politics and at least she might be able to give Donald a run for his money (something poor Joe Biden wouldn't have been able to do)
Truss was not stitched up.
Indeed Obama should have waited and let Hillary serve a term or two before seeking the job.
But Harris as the first female president would feel wrong. She hasn't demonstrated her leadership capabilities. She hasn't been tested through a full primary process. She is weak and ineffectual.
Where is the real talent?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60117513
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/blackrocks-fink-says-hes-stopped-using-weaponised-term-esg-2023-06-26/
Never forget that when Kamala Harris was 29-years-old, she started an AFFAIR with 60-year-old Willie Brown, he was a married California house speaker, Mayor of San Francisco and one of the most powerful in California
He bought Kamala expensive gifts like a BMW and appointed her to two influential positions. He named Kamala to the California Medical Assistance Commission, a job that paid $72,000 a year and also appointed her to the state's Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a lucrative position that put another $97,088 a year in her pockets. Brown later faced an FBI corruption investigation for handing out lucrative city contracts and appointments to friends and political allies.
Even after he dumped Kamala in 1995, he still continued to use his influence to promote her career, "I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco." - Brown
Harris was elected California's attorney general in 2010 with massive help from Willie and when she ran for United States Senate in 2016, Brown called on her likely opponent, Antonio Villaraigosa, to stay out of the race
https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1815109953603911697
NEW THREAD
I think Truss was done up like a kipper. However, she was naive enough walk into the bear trap, so deserves limited sympathy.
Where is the real talent on the US centre left?
One would think that a letter to the American people from the president announcing his decision to step aside would not be signed using a digital signature and would be accompanied by a photo op and a scheduled conference in the morning that followed.
Instead we have a digitally signed letter released on the president’s
@X
account, an account we know that is run by a staffer, no photo, and no live scheduled address to the American people.
If I were China, I would invade Taiwan tomorrow.
4:13 AM · Jul 22, 2024
·
4M
Views
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1815223669322383628
But a house is different. Proximity to work? School? Partners work? Parents? Does it have a parking space? Different houses are different. Compromises are made.
Right move is a comparison site - fungibilty is a totally different concept
Something smells.
Why would President Biden announce such a momentous and historic decision on a Sunday afternoon on a social media platform? The letter he posted was not written on White House stationary. And his signature appeared to be photoshopped. Also, Biden's signature was underlined and typically he does not underline his name.
His staff only found out once the message had been posted on X. And Cabinet members were notified by the Chief of Staff -- not Biden.
The last time the public saw Biden he feebly walked down the stairs of Air Force One and had to be physically assisted into the presidential limo. He has not been seen in public since.
How do we know Biden wrote that letter? And how do we know that Biden posted the letter on his X page? There wasn't even an official White House photograph of the moment.
His brother, Frank Biden, told CBS News that health "absolutely" was the deciding factor in the decision. And then he told CBS “Selfishly, I will have him back to enjoy whatever time he has left."
Is President Biden still alive? Is he awake and alert? Is he in command of his faculties? With respect, we need to see proof of life.
4:06 AM · Jul 22, 2024
·
2.7M
Views
https://x.com/toddstarnes/status/1815221745395098015
This is how it works in countries which don’t have housing shortages. Numbers of properties stay empty because the market has cleared.
Property is only a one way bet, when there is a large, sustained shortage.
I suspect the answer is that the real talent just doesn't want anything much to do with elected office. The actual power and money is elsewhere, and the process of getting elected increasingly resembles that scene in the Shawshank Redemption only with no redemption.
The old style public servants are a dying breed, Biden was possibly the last. So we're left with possibly decent but ultimately bureaucratic types (Leslie Knope if we're lucky), or ego trippers like DJT.
If it's a supply problem, I don't know how that gets solved.
Proximity to work/school/etc are issues if you're looking at different homes in different areas. Just as if you're looking at different makes/models of a device.
However just as whether its one of a run of devices, a run of like-for-like homes can be very interchangeable. Whether you get plot 7, plot 8 or plot 147 of the same development make little difference to those things you mentioned if they're of the same spec. And if one is unavailable people will happily substitute for what is available.
When we bought our home there were three houses of the exact same spec, on the exact same development, that were available, including our next door neighbour, the other half of our semi. We could choose any of those three, of the same spec, in the same practical location, for the same price.
Although how that would hold in a change of nomination I'll admit I don't know. After all, it's never actually happened.