My prediction: Trump wins quite comfortably, and that’s the last free and fair election in American history.
You can make the case that Americans have only really ever had free and fair elections from the 1970s onwards so America would be reverting to the mean.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
The dear old Telegraph is getting ever more shrill.
Govt should cut the IHT rate to 25% and reform it substantially. Current rules practically encourage second generation to sell up and cash in on inheritances rather than building the business.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
My prediction: Trump wins quite comfortably, and that’s the last free and fair election in American history.
Certainly a pretty good chance that is exactly what is going to happen.
Far too many US voters don't seem that bothered whether they live in a democracy or not.
Indeed. A succession of senior intelligence and military figures have testified to Congress over the last year or so that American democracy is essentially a total sham. And that testimony has been vociferously backed up by cross party Gang of 8 members, including the Senate Majority Leader.
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
I respect your opinion greatly so this is a 'cut out and keep' post.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
Of course. It was an absurd demand.
But it was also making an excessive initial pitch so that the landing spot was something acceptable.
I thought Conservatives understood business and negotiation.
Sure, so Another Richard was correct when he said 'Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand'.
True, but irrelevant.
The more interesting question is when did twentyish percent over two years light up as the landing point, and whether the Sunak government could have saved itself some grief by settling sooner.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Cornel West will not appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania the State Supreme Court ruled .
The progressive candidate could have taken some votes from Harris so a small boost for her campaign .
Hurrah!
At the moment there’s two in effect spoiler candidates , the Putin arselicker and alleged Green candidate Stein and Oliver the Libertarian. So you could say that’s a wash with both Harris and Trump effected . All these legal challenges delayed the printing of mail in ballots so now they can go ahead .
Not sure it's a wash. Oliver is on the liberal side of Libertarian, and isn't supported by the right wing of the Libertarian Party itself. He's pro-choice and supports legislation to make abortion legal nationwide. He is in favour of (legal) immigration, and supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He's against the death penalty. He's also in favour of ending military support for Israel and Ukraine. He supported Obama back in 2008.
It's not at all clear that Oliver will take more votes from Trump than Harris, but Stein will likely take more votes from Harris than Trump. It's perfectly possible that they will get fewer votes between them than the winning margin in any state, but not if my earlier prediction that the election will be decided by a recount in Pennsylvania comes true!
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
Can I try?
Trump's incontinence pants emit the aroma of rosewater.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
When I was a young whippersnapper I had a rule that I was happy to accept a coffee from a service provider (I think I once accepted lunch). One colleague, in particular, took ski weekends and a trip to Vegas for a boxing match.
It wasn’t against the rules. But it was noticed.
Nowadays, there are detailed *laws*. Coffee is OK. Lunch *can* be an issue - if it goes over about £25, you are into reporting it.
The ski weekends and Vegas are straight up banned, for nearly all purposes.
Edit: a friend, in private banking, saw the reasons why. He had to clean up some messes. Young, impressionable kids at the bank had been taken out for expensive meals by the clients. After the champagne, the topic of the loans had come up…
That’s why good private banks don’t hire young impressionable kids
Edit: and lunch was at Davy’s wine bar or the equivalent. No one could claim it was an incentive to give him business…
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
My prediction: Trump wins quite comfortably, and that’s the last free and fair election in American history.
Certainly a pretty good chance that is exactly what is going to happen.
Far too many US voters don't seem that bothered whether they live in a democracy or not.
Indeed. A succession of senior intelligence and military figures have testified to Congress over the last year or so that American democracy is essentially a total sham. And that testimony has been vociferously backed up by cross party Gang of 8 members, including the Senate Majority Leader.
And no one really seems to care. Including here.
I care. The western democracies are pretty fucked if America falls into dystopian authoritarian gilead.
But what can one do? I don't have a vote and the only person I know over there lives in a safe Dem state.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
How would you define 'landslide' ?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
On topic I have absolutely no confidence about this but I'm going to say a solid Kamala Harris win. Let's call it all the Biden states plus NC, minus a coin flip for AZ and GA. I think the polling could easily be way out in either direction but I have no idea which so I'm just going to assume it's right, and the question is then whether from here on the race moves towards Trump or towards Harris. On balance I think it goes towards Harris because:
1) I don't think Trump is as effective a politician as he used to be. He used to be in touch with the voters in a way that most politicians aren't; He'd go to MacDonalds and buy stuff and talk to people. Now I think he's in much more of an echo chamber and he's paying too much attention to what he reads on the internet. He's running a bad campaign and Harris is running a good campaign.
2) Relatedly, the Dems are having fun and the GOP aren't. This is different to 2016 when Trump was the underdog but they had the Pepe memes and stuff while the Dems mostly had self-righteousness and something about a glass ceiling.
3) I think the Dems have more cards to play than the GOP. A lot of the Trump skulduggery of the last decade has national security implications and the US government can read most of your communications. They must know loads more than we do and they can release it whenever they want to. In 2016 they would have been constrained by norms but this time they know what's at stake. Also if Biden is amenable they swear in President Kamala which might well result in a honeymoon. There are arguments for and against this but the point is that it's the Dems who have got the options. The Trump side have a bit of potential for mischief but it's mostly relying on unreliable proxies like Putin and Netanyahu, who are complicated to work with.
For what it's worth, I think Harris will win this. It's interesting, psychologically, to consider voting for X and against Y and which is more important, but I think there'll be stronger motivation for those who oppose Trump personally and who want abortion rights to be more advanced than the Dark Ages.
I know Trump has some fervent support, so it's not a one way street.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I don't agree with the clothing issue. Our last incorruptible Prime Minister, David Cameron never took freebies on behalf of himself or his wife, but I believe there are practical reasons why he is entitled to take the footie tickets. A contribution in lieu of payment to a bone fide charity might be acceptable recompense.
I’m sorry but that’s bullshit
“Entitled to take the footie tickets”
FFS no one is “entitled” to anything
If he wants to go he can pay for himself. If he wants to make the case why the taxpayer should cover the difference in cost between a stand and a hospitality ticket for security then good luck to him.
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
I respect your opinion greatly so this is a 'cut out and keep' post.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
Yes, I was wondering why RCS100 gives it to Trump by a whisker, but his individual state results give it to Harris by a whisker. In that scenario if Trump picked up Nevada too it would be 269-269, which favours Trump as he would then win by House state delegations (probably).
More so than usual, the logical voter in this election goes for a split White House / Congress vote, to constrain the loonier aspects of both candidates agendas. If so, be interesting to see what way that split falls.
As per the header, Silver by the way indicates a growing chance (25%) of Harris winning the popular vote but losing the EV. “Stolen I tell ya!”.
Yes of course. Because Government that can’t achieve anything is always great….
It is perfectly great, if the executive is extreme. You’d want a senate brake on Trump Supreme Court appointments for example. And you’d certainly want a moderating House against the quasi communist aspects of Kamala’s pursuit of “equality of outcome, not of opportunity”.
Just extraordinary that America has landed itself with perhaps the two worst candidates ever in the same election. The Democrats couldn’t get it right even after a second bite of the cherry!
'quasi communist'. Have you been reading too many of Trump's posts? If the Democrats are in anyway quasi communist I'd hate to know how you describe Labour or European left of centre parties. They must have fallen off the scale.
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
I respect your opinion greatly so this is a 'cut out and keep' post.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
I am avoiding a prediction on the grounds that I do not wish to look stupid on November 12th.
My prediction: Trump wins quite comfortably, and that’s the last free and fair election in American history.
Certainly a pretty good chance that is exactly what is going to happen.
Far too many US voters don't seem that bothered whether they live in a democracy or not.
Indeed. A succession of senior intelligence and military figures have testified to Congress over the last year or so that American democracy is essentially a total sham. And that testimony has been vociferously backed up by cross party Gang of 8 members, including the Senate Majority Leader.
And no one really seems to care. Including here.
Chuck Schumer thinks 'American democracy is essentially a total sham' ? Link, please.
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
One of the things rarely mentioned is how well Trump did among Hispanic voters in Florida and Texas in 2020.
Whether that continues or reverses will likely affect the results there and possibly also in Arizona and Nevada.
Don’t forget that Hispanic voters in Florida are Cuban and tend to be more GOP that others
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
I respect your opinion greatly so this is a 'cut out and keep' post.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
I am avoiding a prediction on the grounds that I do not wish to look stupid on November 12th.
I'm making one on the grounds that making predictions that make you look stupid is how you learn, and it doesn't really matter what people here think of me.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
The momentum is with Harris and Trump is a deeply flawed candidate.
Harris wins the Popular vote by 8%, takes all states that Biden took in 2020 and narrowly adds NC, possibly a random one from left field like IA.
I honestly don’t think US polling is worth jack shit.
That’s my bold prediction.
I can think of half a dozen Republican States more likely to flip than Iowa: indeed, I'd think Texas and Florida are both likelier to go Blue.
My current prediction: Trump by a whisker, but with a surprising set of state by state results:
Dem Holds: Nevada, Arizona and Georgia Rep Pickups: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Dem Pickups: North Carolina
And both Florida and Texas are surprisingly close.
Why?
Because demographics are pushing those sunshine States towards the Democrats at breakneck pace, just as the loss of the White Non-Graduate vote is making the entirety of the rustbelt look like Ohio.
I respect your opinion greatly so this is a 'cut out and keep' post.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
I am avoiding a prediction on the grounds that I do not wish to look stupid on November 12th.
The dam will crack and the move to Harris will become a torrent.
I have a theory that the undecided information poor swing voters are followers of local fashion. They tend to vote in line with their neighbours. I saw it with Brexit. It's a standoff at the moment but the move is to Harris. It isn't linear. There will be a breakout.
Cornel West will not appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania the State Supreme Court ruled .
The progressive candidate could have taken some votes from Harris so a small boost for her campaign .
Hurrah!
At the moment there’s two in effect spoiler candidates , the Putin arselicker and alleged Green candidate Stein and Oliver the Libertarian. So you could say that’s a wash with both Harris and Trump effected . All these legal challenges delayed the printing of mail in ballots so now they can go ahead .
Not sure it's a wash. Oliver is on the liberal side of Libertarian, and isn't supported by the right wing of the Libertarian Party itself. He's pro-choice and supports legislation to make abortion legal nationwide. He is in favour of (legal) immigration, and supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He's against the death penalty. He's also in favour of ending military support for Israel and Ukraine. He supported Obama back in 2008.
It's not at all clear that Oliver will take more votes from Trump than Harris, but Stein will likely take more votes from Harris than Trump. It's perfectly possible that they will get fewer votes between them than the winning margin in any state, but not if my earlier prediction that the election will be decided by a recount in Pennsylvania comes true!
The Libertarian candidate is very unconventional, even for the US Libertarian Party. I’m not sure he gets many votes at all. Much more of a leftist that most of the members, elected through the middle of a split vote ahead of favourite Michael Rectenwald.
Agree that it’s all down to Pennsylvania, that’s where both teams are currently working hard to get voters registered. It could be a few thousand votes each way in that State that determines the outcome of the whole election.
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
How would you define 'landslide' ?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
Oh, by winning most if not all the swing states - Ariz, Geo, Mich, Nev, NC, Penn & Wisc. Not Texas. That's fool's gold for punters.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
I think that's a good way of backing Trump - no way he wins the PV.
On the subject of gifts: Teachers tend not to get much more than a bottle of wine or box of chocolate (and the younger the pupils, the more likely you are to get something). I’ve been to two “hospitality” events: one to see Wasps when they played at Adam’s Park (because at the time I helped coach Rugby), and one Saturday at a Lords Test (ditto for cricket). Not sure who provided the first, but the box at Lords was courtesy of the then chairman of governors, so I wouldn’t have thought it needed declaring.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
We'll go, wherever Saint Mirren go, We are the North Bank Agg-a-ro We'll take you on, whoever you may be, 'Cos we are the boys from Pais-i-lee
For what it's worth, I think Harris will win this. It's interesting, psychologically, to consider voting for X and against Y and which is more important, but I think there'll be stronger motivation for those who oppose Trump personally and who want abortion rights to be more advanced than the Dark Ages.
I know Trump has some fervent support, so it's not a one way street.
Trump is more liberal on abortion than most of his party, a point he made at the debate last week. That issue may drive down-ticket votes, and turnout for referendums, but not necessarily the presidential election outcome.
Meanwhile, Trump’s quite literal dead cat strategy from the debate has got most of the media still talking about immigration a week afterwards, an issue on which the average media hack has a very different experience to the average American in swing state towns and cities.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
Nah bollocks it's trying to puncture the PB groupthink whereby the entire posting cohort thinks Trump is a lunatic and only lunatics could possibly vote for him. It's our duty to try to show you lot of cossetted bien pensant guardian-reading, letter-writing liberals that another side to this election exists.
Not in the betting markets, or likely result. But in the minds of rational American voters.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
Nah bollocks it's trying to puncture the PB groupthink whereby the entire posting cohort thinks Trump is a lunatic and only lunatics could possibly vote for him. It's our duty to try to show you lot of cossetted bien pensant guardian-reading, letter-writing liberals that another side to this election exists.
Not in the betting markets, or likely result. But in the minds of rational American voters.
Your welcome.
What the feck?
I’ve consistently said this election is Trump’s to lose and indeed in this header I’ve said I expect Trump to win.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
I haven't checked the odds (betting on politics is more or less illegal in Germany), but if you think the Dems are definitely going to win the popular vote couldn't you just back Dems to win popular vote?
I’ve only got two comments. We’ll, three, but the first is a cop out -
1) I don’t know. However… 2) The polls underestimated Trump the last two elections. I suspect there is, this cycle, some overcompensating, because… 3) The state polling for President is way out of whack, in many cases, with down ticket polling for the same party in senate polling. For example, Casey is 8-9 points up in PA but Trump is constantly level or winning in the same polling round by the same pollsters. Ditto Rosen in NV. I get both are incumbent and that down ticket does not always follow the top, but the variance is quite extreme this time. And based on spend Trump’s given up on NV, where even Trafalgar has Harris up.
But I don’t know. Weighting’s a difficult job at the best of times
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
There is 1 slight redeeming feature Chelsea isn't Millwall.
beyond that I think your point is valid...
Edit - on the other hand Millwall fans know their position and role in football
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
Arsenal include in their fan base Starmer, Osama bin Laden, Jeremy Corbyn, and worst of all Piers Morgan.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
I did say to a friend last night, if Harris wins, then she will win big (sort of Obama 2008 in the electoral college.)
I think the odds on who wins are about right with Harris a slight favorite. I do however think there is a chance of a Harris landslide, whereas I just can't see any chance of the same for Trump.
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
How would you define 'landslide' ?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
Oh, by winning most if not all the swing states - Ariz, Geo, Mich, Nev, NC, Penn & Wisc. Not Texas. That's fool's gold for punters.
Although Trump can win the election by winning a minority of those states - PA, NC, GA.
As can Harris with PA and two of MI, NC and GA.
Its odd how US and UK elections have changed.
In earlier generations US elections could vary massively over a short period, 1956-1964-1972 most prominently, while UK elections didn't.
Now UK elections can vary massively over a short period while US elections don't.
The dam will crack and the move to Harris will become a torrent.
I have a theory that the undecided information poor swing voters are followers of local fashion. They tend to vote in line with their neighbours. I saw it with Brexit. It's a standoff at the moment but the move is to Harris. It isn't linear. There will be a breakout.
On the header, I honestly can't call it. I hope Harris, but there are enough ignorant or stupid or racist people in the USA to take it the other way, and enough shenanigans and attempted illegal manipulation to make it a lottery.
The only bets I have are a small one on Harris as next POTUS, which is now up to cashout £9, and potential winnings of £75. And £9 at about 6-1 on the Democrats to take Florida. So just dabbling. If I cash out both, I will be £8 up.
A potentially interesting aside is that Mr Trump's sentencing hearing for his New York election manipulation case before Judge Merchan is I think on Nov 26th, which is after the vote but before the meeting where appointed Electors elect the President. It would be wonderful if the Judge sent Mr Trump "Straight to Prison, Do not pass Go, do not collect $20" as in Monopoly whilst appealing, and which Trump's behaviour in violation of release conditions justifies in spades - but he won't.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
That’s a really interesting bet.
The last few elections there’s been a Dem bias to the popular vote (vs EC delegates), although there’s some polling evidence of a swing away from them in safe states such as NY and CA this time, led by crime and immigration.
In theory it’s 3.1 (68/32) on a 50/50 chance, minus the chance of Trump winning the popular vote and EC delegates (5-10%?).
Could be worth a punt that one, as part of a balanced portfolio of laying whichever candidate is shorter odds this week.
The US election is very hard to call at this point because so many swing states are within the margin for error in terms of polling.
If forced I’d tend to favour Harris because of several factors in the run upto to November 5th .
The Fed are likely to cut rates tomorrow by between 0.25% and 0.50% . The former being more favoured by most economists.
There’s only one more inflation update before the election , that’s likely to show a further fall helped by gas prices which are lower than last month .
Harris needs to close the gap in terms of whose favoured for the economy and that should help . I think Trumps path to 270 is narrower especially as there’s a good chance he loses North Carolina , demographic changes in the last few years favour the Dems . Not just in the increase in those with a degree but the increase in the Asian vote.
There’s also the possible reverse coattails . The GOP candidate for governor is horrific and could cause a drag on Trumps vote.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1 No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
I haven't checked the odds (betting on politics is more or less illegal in Germany), but if you think the Dems are definitely going to win the popular vote couldn't you just back Dems to win popular vote?
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
This is just triangulation.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
Will all the right wing commentators on here stop going on about anti-Trump “group think” on the site. This thread header is predicting a Trump win. I’m not sure when the right decided that playing the persecuted was a good look, but it’s not edifying.
Harris popular vote (70%+ confident on that) Harris EC (not at all confident on that, 55% maybe, and it may well just be because I don't really get how the US can vote for Trump again having seen him in office - I can understand how they voted for him the first time)
Betting wise, I backed Biden and Harris soon after the 2020 result as I thought both were too long. Got cold feet and traded most Biden for a small profit sometime mid-term(ish). Harris bet looked like a stranded asset until Biden dropped out, at which point I cashed most of that in. Also have a lay of Trump from mid-term(ish).
I lose a little if Trump wins, healthy profit otherwise. I can trade out to be up a little either way - and probably I should given my assessment of odds above - but haven't done so yet.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
Westminster council are currently doing work and pointed out that elderly and disabled people need the buses to get to the front door of the places they want to go to.
It's a long walk from the next street north of Oxford Street to Oxford Street - one my mum couldn't easily do anymore.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
My prediction: Trump wins quite comfortably, and that’s the last free and fair election in American history.
You can make the case that Americans have only really ever had free and fair elections from the 1970s onwards so America would be reverting to the mean.
Every American presidential election brings pictures of queues that would shame a newly-democratic third world dictatorship. I'm not sure free and fair ever applies if your opponents have to queue for hours.
Topping is sort of right. Many posters on here are irrationally terrified of Trump47 and work backwards from the lemma that such a thing is impossible.
Except that most posters think, and regularly say, it’s on a knife-edge. Which rather upends your theory.
My fondest hope is that he gets shot in his big fucking stupid orange face but if that doesn't happen I want him to win.
They're not mutually exclusive, he could totally win and then get shot in his big fucking stupid orange face, or get shot in his big fucking stupid orange face and nevertheless go on to win.
I don't follow this stuff as intently as some here so apologies if propaganda or already reported, but I just saw a report of another large scale incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russia some 20 miles from their incursion into Kursk.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
Westminster council are currently doing work and pointed out that elderly and disabled people need the buses to get to the front door of the places they want to go to.
It's a long walk from the next street north of Oxford Street to Oxford Street - one my mum couldn't easily do anymore.
Buses aren’t like cabs. They don’t stop at front doors. I avoid Oxford Street like the plague but the bus stops are pretty widely spaced
The republicans have got some ads/memes going showing various democrats making jokes about wanting to 'get Trump' etc, in the aftermath of yesterday, and also supporting unrest in the context of the BLM riots. For an apolitical/centrist voter, I think this is quite a powerful point - there is a cultural tolerance of left wing violence and an inconsistency in how it is treated in comparison to other forms of political violence.
Yes, you always manage to find positives for Trump.
Why shouldn't he?
It’s the consistent ‘I’m apolitical centrist’ but always positive about Trump but never about the Dems.
The term is shill.
Nah bollocks it's trying to puncture the PB groupthink whereby the entire posting cohort thinks Trump is a lunatic and only lunatics could possibly vote for him. It's our duty to try to show you lot of cossetted bien pensant guardian-reading, letter-writing liberals that another side to this election exists.
Not in the betting markets, or likely result. But in the minds of rational American voters.
Your welcome.
What the feck?
I’ve consistently said this election is Trump’s to lose and indeed in this header I’ve said I expect Trump to win.
Go stand in low IQ corner with Leon.
Just Leon?
Yes there is a disconnect on PB.
On the one hand, many people, including yourself, perform analysis and conclude that: it's close, perhaps TCTC.
And on the other, just about the entire PB cohort dismisses Trump as a lunatic, a nazi, an idiot, and deranged and describe his followers in similar terms.
The analysis comes, presumably and largely, from opinion polls, but surely there would be more insight in your analysis if people understood some of the reasons that Trump is popular with (checks latest opinion poll) around half of the US voting public.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Yup. £10k is the starting price for the smallest, least desirable box at a Premier League match apparently. Sold out, so they’re obviously underpricing them.
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
In addition to the two railway tunnels that already run under Oxford Street? Had you noticed quite a big one opened a couple years back? How many tunnels does one street need?
Interesting that Khan's plan to pedestrianise Oxford Street is being met with almost universal acclaim, with lots of people asking why Soho and other areas aren't being considered too.
Tide is turning somewhat.
It’s a great idea. Except for where you put the buses? Doing that in the London grid is difficult. Easy to say - “the parallel streets”. But those parallel streets are already used. So you’d end up rebuilding them.. etc etc
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
That’s exactly what you need to do.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
The dam will crack and the move to Harris will become a torrent.
I have a theory that the undecided information poor swing voters are followers of local fashion. They tend to vote in line with their neighbours. I saw it with Brexit. It's a standoff at the moment but the move is to Harris. It isn't linear. There will be a breakout.
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
Given that student fees are static where are they finding the money for a 2.5% pay increase from?
I don't follow this stuff as intently as some here so apologies if propaganda or already reported, but I just saw a report of another large scale incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russia some 20 miles from their incursion into Kursk.
This is part of what I obliquely referred to in the last thread. *Something* has been happening for a few days now in various places in that area; both Ukraine and (unusually) Russia are being tight-lipped about it. However Russia did call for another large area of Kursk to be depopulated evacuated, which says something.
The problem with Kursk is that the grey area of no control seems to be rather large in places, because both sides are sending in small groups into the enemy-held areas for sabotage and general mayhem purposes. So piccies may happen of troops on both sides with a flag at a geolocatable building in the enemy's rear, but that does not mean they have control over that area.
IMV neither side have enough troops in Kursk to totally 'hold' the areas they 'hold'. But there are areas where there are no Ukrainians, and others where there are no Russian troops.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Because the donor got access he should not have (AIUI).
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
The way you deal with Lady Starmer’s outfits, is to very publically invite British designers to dress her, lending the clothes for each event and highlighting the designer in the event’s press release.
That’s very different from a party donor handing over a cheque to spend on Kensington High St.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
I’ve seen it suggested that a 10 person Arsenal box is £10k.
Buy one, a couple of places for security. Then flog the other 7 seats to politicians who are rich. Charge them £1500 each.
Lots of people would really like to go to top flight football and can't or won't because of its ludicrous cost. (My long ago Arsenal attending days were when you paid well under £1 to stand in the North Bank and listen to racist chanting).
It is reasonable for our PM to be able to attend, just as our PM should generally be an Arsenal, Middlesex (or Surrey) and Saracens supporter.
In general he should be very clearly paying for his ticket; the fact that the totality would also cost loads extra because of his security situation should be borne by the taxpayer.
To govern is to choose. To choose to go to football is to make a personal economic choice, and this should be true for PMs too.
Starmer has got it wrong and should move to get it right.
The North Bank used to have a reputation for original chants. I fondly remember:
Tiptoe, through the North Bank With your boots on, And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
He's blond, he's quick, his name's a porno flick....
For all their faults, Arsenal fans have always had a rather enderaing wit about them.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
Arsenal include in their fan base Starmer, Osama bin Laden, Jeremy Corbyn, and worst of all Piers Morgan.
Time to shut the club down.
And me* and tlg86 (I think, maybe others here, too?) - strong arguments to save the club, surely?
*well, notionally - they were my childhood club and that is forever set in stone, but I haven't been in 20 years (I'd have to pay for my ticket :cry) and rarely watch them on the telly
So does everyone agree that Sunak has been proved right in not agreeing to the doctors 35% pay demand ?
Aside from the extra money that would have cost taxpayers it would very likely had to a wage spiral across the whole public sector.
I don't know sort of settlement Johnson, Truss, Sunak (whichever one it was) would have been able to make, given the values he and his generation of Conservative leadership stand for.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
An agreement requires two sides.
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yesterday the uni released its pay settlement for 2024-25. We are essentially getting 2.5%. At the same time the medics are getting 10x that (over two years) and saying its just the start. Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
Given that student fees are static where are they finding the money for a 2.5% pay increase from?
All those lovely overseas student fees that we are tucking into. Its clear now that some institutions will preferentially take an overseas student onto a course over and above a home student of equal academic merit. Also you have recruitment freezes and staff expected to do more.
NEW: Keir Starmer says he wouldn't be able to watch Arsenal play if nobody paid for his tickets
"Never going to an Arsenal game again because I can't accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far."
Well the vast majority of the other 60,000 people at each match manage to buy their own tickets just fine, and I’ll take a random guess that most of them get paid considerably less than the Prime Minister.
£10 says he gets to watch Oasis as a guest of the FA at Wembley too.
Sadly the days when a PM could go to a match with no security detail are gone. Though have any ever tried?
Those look awfully like the hospitality seats at the Dell:
I had hospitality seats once at The Walkers Stadium, given by one of the directors as a thank you for treating them. Nice bloke, but the only time I have had to wear collar and tie to a match. Sandwiches and drinks at half time, and no queue for the bogs were nice, but a bit soulless compare to my usual seat.
I got the full hospitality experience at the Rugby once. That was fun
I did at Twickenham many moons ago. Thanks to a toolmaker I dealt with. It was ace.
Nowadays I cannot accept anything more than a desk diary from any company I deal with.
I think this touches on a point why it has become more toxic. Lots of jobs you can't accept any gifts personally these days, where as 30-40 years ago it was quite normal part of doing business (and the soft and hard corruption that can come along with it).
There was the story about a lowly street cleaner not even been able to accept a holiday that residents fund raised for.
Where as PM's are having the very fancy wallpaper and suits paid for when they are millionaires and can make multiples of that as soon as they leave office.
I think it shows another aspect to Starmer's political tin ear. We've already seen his insensitivity in cancelling the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners to fund massive pay increases for his public sector union paymasters and now we see his hypocrisy in having clothes paid for him despite having objected to Boris's wallpaper.
Whenever challeneged, rather than defusing the story by returning the trivial gifts, he goes into prickly lawyer mode, never really explaining convincingly or apologising.
It's why his government has had such a quick collapse in YouGov approval ratings.
Especially when Starmer made such a play about cleaning up politics.
He's a wealthy man, why could he not pay for the hospitality at his Soccer club instead of just taking freebies.
"Giving the example of football tickets, which the Prime Minister is known to accept as gifts, he said: “I’m a massive Arsenal fan. I can’t go into the stands because of security reasons. Therefore, if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality, I can’t go to a game. You could say, ‘well, bad luck’. That’s why gifts have to be registered.
“But, you know, never going to an Arsenal game again because I can’t accept hospitality is pushing it a bit far.”"
Presumably Starmer means he needs a box for security reasons (also so he does not bump into fellow-Gooner Jeremy Corbyn). On the one hand, these are piffling amounts. On the other hand, many of us have to sit through annual training on the dangers and illegality of bribery, and Starmer himself had a front row seat for Boris's expense scandals.
The thing is a don't see either getting a seat at the football or those clothes as bribery.
1) the football is because everyone in Football wants the publicity that comes from pointing the camera at him watching a match once in a while (or even at every match). Now you could argue it's football trying to bribe him but it's a big industry in the UK 2) the clothing is again - companies want fancy people wearing their clothes because a photo in a newspaper is worth £x0,000 in advertising. So giving some clothes to the PM's wife makes sense on a cheap advertising basis alone...
Except the clothes donor got a No.10 pass that (AIUI) he should not have got. Odd, isn't it, that of all people, a donor gets a pass to the highest levels of power.
Corruption: plain and simple.
And Labour supporters would be screeching about this if it was a Tory PM.
No I don't think they would. No one minded Sunak's freebie to St Mary's mentioned by Foxy. Labour have chased big ticket corruption. The client media and the PB faithful are trying to equalise Mrs Starmer's frocks with Michelle Mone's PPE contracts.
Now do I believe Mrs Starmer should be getting free frocks when she can afford her own? No.
Ah "big ticket" corruption.
What utter b/s.
Starmer is meant to be better than this; it sad;y seems he is not. And the rot always starts at the top (*)
(*) Something I said about the Conservatives under Johnson many times...
I've said I think it is wrong, what more do you want? I can't agree that it has an equivalence to PPE contracts, putting sons of KGB grandees in the House of Lords and overruling planning issues for Richard Desmond rewarded by a paltry £10,000 donation* to the Conservative Party.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
You are excusing it by saying "the other lot are worse." That may be true, but it's also pretty irrelevant.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
I still don’t see where the sleaze is in #FundsForFrocks. Lord Alli is a long-term Labour donor - if he wants to ringfence some of that input to Lady Vic’s wardrobe so she can shine on the world stage, so what?
Starmer's schtick was "Whiter than White". He hammered the Tories over ever misdemeanour. And yet within weeks of assuming power here he is. The offence is trivial, but FFS. Walk the walk.
Comments
Reeves is being encouraged to target a backbone of the British economy
Calls to reform inheritance tax relief could only have been dreamed up by those with little understanding of how the real world works
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/16/reeves-encouraged-target-backbone-of-british-economy/
Far too many US voters don't seem that bothered whether they live in a democracy or not.
Tiptoe, through the North Bank
With your boots on,
And we'll kick your 'ead in.
Those were the days.
* For being so royally tucked up by Desmond, Jenrick is unfit for high office. Just ten grand? And it was worth nearly fifty million to Desmond.
Govt should cut the IHT rate to 25% and reform it substantially. Current rules practically encourage second generation to sell up and cash in on inheritances rather than building the business.
What do you think? Breakfast curry - yes. Breakfast burger - definitely. Breakfast salad? Nope. Breakfast roast?
If I am right, the spreads would be of interest when the markets go up. At the moment the only way to back my hunch would be through the State markets, and there the value is slim and liquidity poor.
So I think I will wait.
And no one really seems to care. Including here.
Unusual to have an election on a Monday.
That's a gain in a ward where the Conservatives have never topped the poll before.
Would imply 275 Dem, 263 Rep.
If I must predict something, as per the header, then this is it.
The more interesting question is when did twentyish percent over two years light up as the landing point, and whether the Sunak government could have saved itself some grief by settling sooner.
It's not at all clear that Oliver will take more votes from Trump than Harris, but Stein will likely take more votes from Harris than Trump. It's perfectly possible that they will get fewer votes between them than the winning margin in any state, but not if my earlier prediction that the election will be decided by a recount in Pennsylvania comes true!
Trump's incontinence pants emit the aroma of rosewater.
Edit: and lunch was at Davy’s wine bar or the equivalent. No one could claim it was an incentive to give him business…
(This was in the late 90s so a different world.)
But what can one do? I don't have a vote and the only person I know over there lives in a safe Dem state.
The term is shill.
Trump 2.16 and Harris 1.92 seems about right.
Bf has a market called "Will Election Winner Lose Popular Vote".
Yes 3.1
No 1.45
I'm taking the view that Harris will def win popular vote (abortion issue plus yuk Trump plus Dem ground game).
If we take this as a given (I know ...) then there may be some value in backing Yes at 3.1 (or laying No at 1.47) because in effect that means you are getting 3.1 on a Trump (or any GOP) win against 2.16 current Trump odds.
What do you think?
10% lead in popular vote or two thirds of the electoral vote perhaps ?
If the latter that can be achieved by Harris gaining North Carolina and Texas.
1) I don't think Trump is as effective a politician as he used to be. He used to be in touch with the voters in a way that most politicians aren't; He'd go to MacDonalds and buy stuff and talk to people. Now I think he's in much more of an echo chamber and he's paying too much attention to what he reads on the internet. He's running a bad campaign and Harris is running a good campaign.
2) Relatedly, the Dems are having fun and the GOP aren't. This is different to 2016 when Trump was the underdog but they had the Pepe memes and stuff while the Dems mostly had self-righteousness and something about a glass ceiling.
3) I think the Dems have more cards to play than the GOP. A lot of the Trump skulduggery of the last decade has national security implications and the US government can read most of your communications. They must know loads more than we do and they can release it whenever they want to. In 2016 they would have been constrained by norms but this time they know what's at stake. Also if Biden is amenable they swear in President Kamala which might well result in a honeymoon. There are arguments for and against this but the point is that it's the Dems who have got the options. The Trump side have a bit of potential for mischief but it's mostly relying on unreliable proxies like Putin and Netanyahu, who are complicated to work with.
I know Trump has some fervent support, so it's not a one way street.
“Entitled to take the footie tickets”
FFS no one is “entitled” to anything
If he wants to go he can pay for himself. If he wants to make the case why the taxpayer should cover the difference in cost between a stand and a hospitality ticket for security then good luck to him.
Link, please.
However, he lost a considerable amount of ability to help the Health Service recover as a result, and nearly 1.5 million hospital appointments were lost between Dec 2022 and Mar 2024 or rescheduled, at a time when waiting lists were ballooning:
More than 1.4 million acute inpatient and outpatient appointments have now been rescheduled since strikes by healthcare workers began in December 2022, data from NHS England show.
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q556
In the end they settled afaics for 22% over the period May 2022 to Apr 2025, which is at the level of CPI inflation or a little below, depending on the CPI outturn for 24/25, with the usual variable rates depending on level, partial backdatings and wrinkles.
That is pretty much exactly as @Foxy called it on here the best part of a year ago - a small catchup on the past and CPI-linked for the future.
That looks like a settlement that Sunak may have been able to reach, but now the political cost or benefit is with the Government, and the Opposition need to decide whether they want to treat Health Service Staff as enemies.
Was it worth an extra 1 million or so extra numbers on the waiting list for BoJo / Loopy Liz and Rishi Sunak have had a material effect on the Election? I'm not sure.
A waiting list that had fallen from 7.5 million to 6.5 million ie returned 1/3 of the way to pre-Covid levels, rather than flatlining at the maximum level, may have been a factor, but would not have dealt with the dominant "GET THESE BASTARDS OUT" dynamic.
I think the politicisation of Junior Doctors over the last 3-5 years is an interesting phenomenon.
I have a theory that the undecided information poor swing voters are followers of local fashion. They tend to vote in line with their neighbours. I saw it with Brexit.
It's a standoff at the moment but the move is to Harris. It isn't linear. There will be a breakout.
Agree that it’s all down to Pennsylvania, that’s where both teams are currently working hard to get voters registered. It could be a few thousand votes each way in that State that determines the outcome of the whole election.
Teachers tend not to get much more than a bottle of wine or box of chocolate (and the younger the pupils, the more likely you are to get something).
I’ve been to two “hospitality” events: one to see Wasps when they played at Adam’s Park (because at the time I helped coach Rugby), and one Saturday at a Lords Test (ditto for cricket). Not sure who provided the first, but the box at Lords was courtesy of the then chairman of governors, so I wouldn’t have thought it needed declaring.
We are the North Bank Agg-a-ro
We'll take you on, whoever you may be,
'Cos we are the boys from Pais-i-lee
Meanwhile, Trump’s quite literal dead cat strategy from the debate has got most of the media still talking about immigration a week afterwards, an issue on which the average media hack has a very different experience to the average American in swing state towns and cities.
Starmer was meant to be better than this; he was sold as being better than this. And if this is happening at the top, you can guarantee other corruption is happening lower down the pecking order.
Not in the betting markets, or likely result. But in the minds of rational American voters.
Your welcome.
One cannot say the same about Chelsea. In fact it is hard to find anything endearing about them. Of course you are moving several notches down the IQ scale there.
You may even be down to single figures.
Donald Trump on Kamala Harris, 3 days ago: "She's a Marxist, Communist, fascist."
https://x.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1835839140442657053
Though some may regard that as a good thing.
I’ve consistently said this election is Trump’s to lose and indeed in this header I’ve said I expect Trump to win.
Go stand in low IQ corner with Leon.
1) I don’t know. However…
2) The polls underestimated Trump the last two elections. I suspect there is, this cycle, some overcompensating, because…
3) The state polling for President is way out of whack, in many cases, with down ticket polling for the same party in senate polling. For example, Casey is 8-9 points up in PA but Trump is constantly level or winning in the same polling round by the same pollsters. Ditto Rosen in NV. I get both are incumbent and that down ticket does not always follow the top, but the variance is quite extreme this time. And based on spend Trump’s given up on NV, where even Trafalgar has Harris up.
But I don’t know. Weighting’s a difficult job at the best of times
beyond that I think your point is valid...
Edit - on the other hand Millwall fans know their position and role in football
Time to shut the club down.
Tide is turning somewhat.
As can Harris with PA and two of MI, NC and GA.
Its odd how US and UK elections have changed.
In earlier generations US elections could vary massively over a short period, 1956-1964-1972 most prominently, while UK elections didn't.
Now UK elections can vary massively over a short period while US elections don't.
On the header, I honestly can't call it. I hope Harris, but there are enough ignorant or stupid or racist people in the USA to take it the other way, and enough shenanigans and attempted illegal manipulation to make it a lottery.
The only bets I have are a small one on Harris as next POTUS, which is now up to cashout £9, and potential winnings of £75. And £9 at about 6-1 on the Democrats to take Florida. So just dabbling. If I cash out both, I will be £8 up.
A potentially interesting aside is that Mr Trump's sentencing hearing for his New York election manipulation case before Judge Merchan is I think on Nov 26th, which is after the vote but before the meeting where appointed Electors elect the President. It would be wonderful if the Judge sent Mr Trump "Straight to Prison, Do not pass Go, do not collect $20" as in Monopoly whilst appealing, and which Trump's behaviour in violation of release conditions justifies in spades - but he won't.
The last few elections there’s been a Dem bias to the popular vote (vs EC delegates), although there’s some polling evidence of a swing away from them in safe states such as NY and CA this time, led by crime and immigration.
In theory it’s 3.1 (68/32) on a 50/50 chance, minus the chance of Trump winning the popular vote and EC delegates (5-10%?).
Could be worth a punt that one, as part of a balanced portfolio of laying whichever candidate is shorter odds this week.
If forced I’d tend to favour Harris because of several factors in the run upto to November 5th .
The Fed are likely to cut rates tomorrow by between 0.25% and 0.50% . The former being more favoured by most economists.
There’s only one more inflation update before the election , that’s likely to show a further fall helped by gas prices which are lower than last month .
Harris needs to close the gap in terms of whose favoured for the economy and that should help . I think Trumps path to 270 is narrower especially as there’s a good chance he loses North Carolina , demographic changes in the last few years favour the Dems . Not just in the increase in those with a degree but the increase in the Asian vote.
There’s also the possible reverse coattails . The GOP candidate for governor is horrific and could cause a drag on Trumps vote.
What corrupt decisions has Mr Starmer made, or what identifiable personal or business benefits have 'donors' received from Mr Starmer?
(My political view on this is that the Opposition and the Right Side of the Media are going at this because otherwise their cupboard is bare.)
Especially with statutory duties regarding access to step free transport - IIRC, anything that makes that *worse* is problematic, in planning terms.
I actually think the best idea would have been to tear up Oxford Street, dig a tunnel the whole length and put the buses and cabs down below. Problem is, that is a CanDo project in a Can’tDo Country.
It will be Harris.
Or Trump.
DJT's most likely path to victory is to flip AZ+GA and any one of WI, PA or MI.
He lost AZ+GA by a total of 22,000 votes (or "votes", LOL) and WI by 20,000 votes so I think he'll do it.
My fondest hope is that he gets shot in his big fucking stupid orange face but if that doesn't happen I want him to win.
Harris EC (not at all confident on that, 55% maybe, and it may well just be because I don't really get how the US can vote for Trump again having seen him in office - I can understand how they voted for him the first time)
Betting wise, I backed Biden and Harris soon after the 2020 result as I thought both were too long. Got cold feet and traded most Biden for a small profit sometime mid-term(ish). Harris bet looked like a stranded asset until Biden dropped out, at which point I cashed most of that in. Also have a lay of Trump from mid-term(ish).
I lose a little if Trump wins, healthy profit otherwise. I can trade out to be up a little either way - and probably I should given my assessment of odds above - but haven't done so yet.
*my evidence for that is that HYUFD’s favourite pollster has Trump only one point up when they’ve historically overestimated him by 4ish.
It's a long walk from the next street north of Oxford Street to Oxford Street - one my mum couldn't easily do anymore.
"Per Fortune, Twitter's revenue has collapsed by approximately 84% since Elon's takeover."
https://x.com/Roshan_Rinaldi/status/1835763775808372773
And an article about it:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/twitters-revenue-collapses-84-tesla-171535190.html
Did the doctors want an agreement with the Conservative government ?
Their demands for a 35% pay rise suggest otherwise.
The other health sector unions came to an agreement so why did the doctors continually push their maximalist demands knowing the damage that it was doing to patients ?
Yes there is a disconnect on PB.
On the one hand, many people, including yourself, perform analysis and conclude that: it's close, perhaps TCTC.
And on the other, just about the entire PB cohort dismisses Trump as a lunatic, a nazi, an idiot, and deranged and describe his followers in similar terms.
The analysis comes, presumably and largely, from opinion polls, but surely there would be more insight in your analysis if people understood some of the reasons that Trump is popular with (checks latest opinion poll) around half of the US voting public.
Yup. £10k is the starting price for the smallest, least desirable box at a Premier League match apparently. Sold out, so they’re obviously underpricing them.
£19k for clothes is totally out of the normal experience for most people.
Whereas, for example, a £19k car would not have been.
There’s plenty of utilities down there to avoid/relocate, and a bit of careful interfacing around the Tube stations, but you need a bus tunnel from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Rd.
Arguably Uni academics have seen a similar fall in incomes to medics over the last 20 years. Of course until the government releases the cap on fees its going to be harder and harder.
The problem with Kursk is that the grey area of no control seems to be rather large in places, because both sides are sending in small groups into the enemy-held areas for sabotage and general mayhem purposes. So piccies may happen of troops on both sides with a flag at a geolocatable building in the enemy's rear, but that does not mean they have control over that area.
IMV neither side have enough troops in Kursk to totally 'hold' the areas they 'hold'. But there are areas where there are no Ukrainians, and others where there are no Russian troops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AMjBZtQE50
He hated Oxford and has never worked with Donald Trump.
Frocks for access - it's just another form of a bung in a brown envelope.
That’s very different from a party donor handing over a cheque to spend on Kensington High St.
*well, notionally - they were my childhood club and that is forever set in stone, but I haven't been in 20 years (I'd have to pay for my ticket :cry) and rarely watch them on the telly
Also you have recruitment freezes and staff expected to do more.