Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This poll feels like a reflection of name recognition – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,254
edited January 2 in General
This poll feels like a reflection of name recognition – politicalbetting.com

Presidential Polling:Harris (D): 43% // Vance (R): 41%Vance (R): 37% // Newsom (D): 34%Vance (R): 37% // Shapiro (D): 34%Vance (R): 40% // Whitmer (D): 33%SoCal Strategies / Dec 23, 2024 / n=656

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,204
    edited January 2
    It's probably a complete fool's errand trying to pick a nominee this far out.

    Dems love a centrist, charismatic bullshitter like Clinton Obama or Kennedy and none of the likely candidates stand out in that regard - certainly not Harris - so I think the header is right that her chances are far overrated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    edited January 2
    Yes I don't think it means much other than name recognition except that Vance clearly has fewer white working class voters who will turn out for him than turned out for Trump, hence in none of the match ups does Vance even match the 46% Trump got in 2016 and 2020 let alone the 49% Trump got this year. In fact despite being VP elect Vance can only match the 41% Dole got in 1996 and already trails Harris though he beats candidates with less name recognition for now. Much like Boris got Johnson Labour Leave voters (most of whom voted Labour or Reform last year when he was no longer Conservative leader) so Trump clearly got Trump Democrats other Republicans probably wouldn't.

    That does show though that a post Trump GOP nominee is eminently beatable if the Democrats can find the right candidate eg a centrist from the Midwest like Buttigieg. Much will also depend on the state of the economy too and if Trump and Vance's tariffs increase prices yet further
  • Driver said:

    Is it only me, or are Liverpool fans everywhere unaware of the assistance they have got from the first half of the fixtures, and counting their mythical cormorants before they’ve hatched?

    In the first half of the season, each team plays almost every other team exactly once and has approximately half its games at home.

    I can't see how the strength of schedule argument works on half a season.
    Simples. Away trips. Liverpool to Everton, Bournemouth, Fulham, Brentford, Manchester City, Brighton, Villa, Forest and Chelsea. Their lead is quite thin considering the advantage of momentum built so far on awkward opponents home bringing confidence of wins strung together.
    Have we not already seen so many sides looking so superb on the first half of fixtures and their football fall apart when the pressure builds and draws mount up? There is absolutely no way anyone can know the psychology of how this Liverpool squad reacts to taking just 1 point from 9, 2 from 12.
    Another huge danger to Liverpool’s title hopes is Mo Salah. His percentage involvements in Liverpool goals so far is phenomenal, but the dangers of this easily overlooked with wins flowing. It shouldn’t be seen as only danger of him spending months in treatment room, he could remain fit, but his form for goal involvements dry up for undroppable player right till season end.
    The season's biggest remaining key "away trip" is actually good news for LFC, not bad news.

    P (LFC win title) = 1 - P (anyone else wins title)

    And the key anyone else is Arsenal, and Arsenal v LFC was already played in October (2-2 draw btw). The remaining fixture in the second-half of the season is LFC v Arsenal in May.

    Nothing is guaranteed but Arsenal are more likely than Liverpool to drop points at Anfield, and they are by far the biggest threat to the title given the shape of the league table.

    Yes LFC are yet to play Forest away. Everyone else in the table is likely too far back to be a plausible threat unless LFC totally collapse in the second-half of the season, City-style.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,617
    edited January 2
    Whilst I agree with the sentiment, she is 80-1 to lay and 70-1 to back which 4 years out is a bit long to be tieing money up particularly when general interest rates are likely to be 4-5% (20%ish cumulative gain over the Trump presidency or so)

    Vance, Newsom and Shapiro lead the betting.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,861
    If it's too early to start betting on the result of our expected 2029, and who the Prime Ministerial candidates will be, it's certainly too early to seriously discuss candidates for Trump's successor when he hasn't even taken office yet.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,038
    edited January 2
    Apart from that it isn't going to be Harris, I doubt if anything is capable of prediction at the moment.

    And second, like Arsenal.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,037
    @hyufd Thanks for the discussion on the last thread, although we are never going to agree.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,059

    Driver said:

    Is it only me, or are Liverpool fans everywhere unaware of the assistance they have got from the first half of the fixtures, and counting their mythical cormorants before they’ve hatched?

    In the first half of the season, each team plays almost every other team exactly once and has approximately half its games at home.

    I can't see how the strength of schedule argument works on half a season.
    Simples. Away trips. Liverpool to Everton, Bournemouth, Fulham, Brentford, Manchester City, Brighton, Villa, Forest and Chelsea. Their lead is quite thin considering the advantage of momentum built so far on awkward opponents home bringing confidence of wins strung together.
    Have we not already seen so many sides looking so superb on the first half of fixtures and their football fall apart when the pressure builds and draws mount up? There is absolutely no way anyone can know the psychology of how this Liverpool squad reacts to taking just 1 point from 9, 2 from 12.
    Another huge danger to Liverpool’s title hopes is Mo Salah. His percentage involvements in Liverpool goals so far is phenomenal, but the dangers of this easily overlooked with wins flowing. It shouldn’t be seen as only danger of him spending months in treatment room, he could remain fit, but his form for goal involvements dry up for undroppable player right till season end.
    The season's biggest remaining key "away trip" is actually good news for LFC, not bad news.

    P (LFC win title) = 1 - P (anyone else wins title)

    And the key anyone else is Arsenal, and Arsenal v LFC was already played in October (2-2 draw btw). The remaining fixture in the second-half of the season is LFC v Arsenal in May.

    Nothing is guaranteed but Arsenal are more likely than Liverpool to drop points at Anfield, and they are by far the biggest threat to the title given the shape of the league table.

    Yes LFC are yet to play Forest away. Everyone else in the table is likely too far back to be a plausible threat unless LFC totally collapse in the second-half of the season, City-style.
    Liverpool will win the title and it won't be close
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,637
    Even more than usual, we simply don't know what America will be like in three years time. It's possible that MAGA ideas and people have decisively won the argument- or that MAGA ideas and people have arranged things so that the argument (and the election) no longer really matters. Or that the incoming government turns out to be a clown show of grift, where bad intent is mitigated by administrative incompetence.

    One of the advantages of the US system is that the opposition don't have to choose their leader until the government have largely shown their hand. Depending on how things go, they need either a Katniss Everdeen revolutionary, or someone to Make America Cosy Again. (It probably won't be Tim Walz, but maybe it should be in that situation.)

    I suspect that losing parties in the UK choose their leader at the worst time for them to make a good choice.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,980
    edited January 2
    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,059
    kjh said:

    @hyufd Thanks for the discussion on the last thread, although we are never going to agree.

    Agreeing with @HYUFD is like pulling hens teeth !!!!!!!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,629
    What would your return on equity be on a 4 year hold? I doubt - barring the unforeseen - there would be any meaningful moves in the odds for at least a couple of years
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,629

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,852
    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,470

    Joe Locker
    @joelocker96.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🚨BREAKING: 20 Broxtowe Borough councillors, including leader Cllr Milan Radulovic, have resigned from the Labour Party to stand as independents under the Broxtowe Independents group due to unhappiness w/ national and regional party.


    #LDReporter

    https://bsky.app/profile/joelocker96.bsky.social/post/3lerbwcwzd22z
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,637

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions
    He's had it explained to him in fairly short words, hasn't he?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,132
    "Britain needs an emergency census
    By Rakib Ehsan"

    https://unherd.com/newsroom/britain-needs-an-emergency-census/
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,629

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications
    of your actions
    He's had it explained to him in fairly short words, hasn't he?
    Probably. I’ve no idea.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,935
    FPT...
    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,786


    Joe Locker
    @joelocker96.bsky.social‬

    Follow
    🚨BREAKING: 20 Broxtowe Borough councillors, including leader Cllr Milan Radulovic, have resigned from the Labour Party to stand as independents under the Broxtowe Independents group due to unhappiness w/ national and regional party.


    #LDReporter

    https://bsky.app/profile/joelocker96.bsky.social/post/3lerbwcwzd22z

    Someone needs to check Nick Palmer is ok.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,315

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,368
    edited January 2
    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,505
    Fishing said:

    It's probably a complete fool's errand trying to pick a nominee this far out.

    Dems love a centrist, charismatic bullshitter like Clinton Obama or Kennedy and none of the likely candidates stand out in that regard - certainly not Harris - so I think the header is right that her chances are far overrated.

    Centrist charismatic bullshitter is a useful term of art. I propose we adopt it - as CCB - on PB, to go alongside things like the SPLORG and what was that Boris acronym again? FLOSOJ or something. A counterpoint to the populist right wing blowhard, and the left wing rabble rouser.

    If we consider CCBs to include people who are good, effective politicians (so it needs to be an insult) but not overly earnest or serious, then the centre includes, from the top of my head alongside those you mentioned: Blair, Clegg, Mandelson, Burnham, Cameron, Ruth Davidson, Ed Balls, Cooper (Daisy, not Yvette), Paddy Ashdown, Macron, Tusk, Trudeau, Obama, Streeting, Buttiegieg, Zelenskyy, Juncker, Abe.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,140
    I seem to remember that prior to the election, people were warning that if Mr Trump was elected there wouldn't be any more presidential elections. So you'd invest your money for years only to have the bet voided?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,090
    edited January 2

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
    Someone on here recently (can't remember who, sorry), said that the SC will rule the two term limit only applies to consecutive terms. They'll do that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,241

    Driver said:

    Is it only me, or are Liverpool fans everywhere unaware of the assistance they have got from the first half of the fixtures, and counting their mythical cormorants before they’ve hatched?

    In the first half of the season, each team plays almost every other team exactly once and has approximately half its games at home.

    I can't see how the strength of schedule argument works on half a season.
    Simples. Away trips. Liverpool to Everton, Bournemouth, Fulham, Brentford, Manchester City, Brighton, Villa, Forest and Chelsea. Their lead is quite thin considering the advantage of momentum built so far on awkward opponents home bringing confidence of wins strung together.
    Have we not already seen so many sides looking so superb on the first half of fixtures and their football fall apart when the pressure builds and draws mount up? There is absolutely no way anyone can know the psychology of how this Liverpool squad reacts to taking just 1 point from 9, 2 from 12.
    Another huge danger to Liverpool’s title hopes is Mo Salah. His percentage involvements in Liverpool goals so far is phenomenal, but the dangers of this easily overlooked with wins flowing. It shouldn’t be seen as only danger of him spending months in treatment room, he could remain fit, but his form for goal involvements dry up for undroppable player right till season end.
    The season's biggest remaining key "away trip" is actually good news for LFC, not bad news.

    P (LFC win title) = 1 - P (anyone else wins title)

    And the key anyone else is Arsenal, and Arsenal v LFC was already played in October (2-2 draw btw). The remaining fixture in the second-half of the season is LFC v Arsenal in May.

    Nothing is guaranteed but Arsenal are more likely than Liverpool to drop points at Anfield, and they are by far the biggest threat to the title given the shape of the league table.

    Yes LFC are yet to play Forest away. Everyone else in the table is likely too far back to be a plausible threat unless LFC totally collapse in the second-half of the season, City-style.
    Three injuries together and Liverpool could be in some trouble.

    Some of us still remember the 77-78 season, when Bob Wilson was rubbishig Forest until losing the First Division title was mathematically impossible.

    He was duly pilloried in a way from which nobody can ever recover - a song by Half Man Half Biscuit

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA3RkTFOSWQ
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,368
    ...
    TimS said:

    Fishing said:

    It's probably a complete fool's errand trying to pick a nominee this far out.

    Dems love a centrist, charismatic bullshitter like Clinton Obama or Kennedy and none of the likely candidates stand out in that regard - certainly not Harris - so I think the header is right that her chances are far overrated.

    Centrist charismatic bullshitter is a useful term of art. I propose we adopt it - as CCB - on PB, to go alongside things like the SPLORG and what was that Boris acronym again? FLOSOJ or something. A counterpoint to the populist right wing blowhard, and the left wing rabble rouser.

    If we consider CCBs to include people who are good, effective politicians (so it needs to be an insult) but not overly earnest or serious, then the centre includes, from the top of my head alongside those you mentioned: Blair, Clegg, Mandelson, Burnham, Cameron, Ruth Davidson, Ed Balls, Cooper (Daisy, not Yvette), Paddy Ashdown, Macron, Tusk, Trudeau, Obama, Streeting, Buttiegieg, Zelenskyy, Juncker, Abe.
    We'll need a seance for Abe's opinion.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,453
    Just caught up with the last thread and HYUFD's simplistic defence of the 11+

    Having read his response to my post, I have to come to the conclusion that HY's IQ just isn't high enough to understand more nuanced argument!

    Send him to the local Secondary Modern!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,980
    AnneJGP said:

    I seem to remember that prior to the election, people were warning that if Mr Trump was elected there wouldn't be any more presidential elections. So you'd invest your money for years only to have the bet voided?

    There are still elections in Russia, for all the difference it makes. For all dictators like autocracy, they still feel the need to abide by the outward appearance of democracy. Mostly, it's just that they want to appear popular, internally and to the world, but the near-global norm of elections must have some impact.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,980

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
    Fair enough. Whitmer at 30 is just about value.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
    Surprised Josh Stein isn’t on that list.

    If anyone wants to bet, value is probably actually Trump if you can find a market. But of the ones on there Beshear would be tempting as value assuming no jiggery pokery.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,241

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
    Even a mad box of frogs thinks Whitmer is too whacky for them:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/13/democrat-gretchen-whitmer-governor-apologises-dorito/
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,980
    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump will impose tariffs, because that's 'winning' in his mind. He will also introduce a load of inflation because he wants tax cuts, loads of spending and low interest rates, because that's good for himself, his friends and his base. In the short term anyway - and Trump has never bothered about debt anyway, which can always be defaulted on (or, if you're in the happy position of the US govt, printed away).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,368

    Just caught up with the last thread and HYUFD's simplistic defence of the 11+

    Having read his response to my post, I have to come to the conclusion that HY's IQ just isn't high enough to understand more nuanced argument!

    Send him to the local Secondary Modern!

    I think he has that covered. Transfer to the Grammar school at 13 or failing that 16. He'll be fine.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,453

    AnneJGP said:

    I seem to remember that prior to the election, people were warning that if Mr Trump was elected there wouldn't be any more presidential elections. So you'd invest your money for years only to have the bet voided?

    There are still elections in Russia, for all the difference it makes. For all dictators like autocracy, they still feel the need to abide by the outward appearance of democracy. Mostly, it's just that they want to appear popular, internally and to the world, but the near-global norm of elections must have some impact.
    Indeed, though our own pretentions of democracy are somewhat questionable when we have a party in power with untrammelled ability to govern when said party only has the active endorsement of 20% of the eligible electorate.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 43,171
    Harris looked a value bet at the 200 available just after her loss but maybe not so much at the current 70. Hard to say really. Whatever, I'm loving my completely blank book atm so let's keep it that way for now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,888
    Just been to see Sonic the Hedgehog 3 at the cinema. Utterly hilarious (thanks mainly to Jim Carrey), with some superb action scenes. But I'll forget everything except for *that* dance scene, which I fear will launch a thousand memes.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,758

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions
    He's had it explained to him in fairly short words, hasn't he?
    You can draw

    Just caught up with the last thread and HYUFD's simplistic defence of the 11+

    Having read his response to my post, I have to come to the conclusion that HY's IQ just isn't high enough to understand more nuanced argument!

    Send him to the local Secondary Modern!

    I benefitted from passing the 11+ and attending a grammar school. In my case the primary school pushed me for it (I guess via mum and dad). I don't think those who didn't even take it would have felt that they failed, but that's an oddity of where I grew up, being outside the catchment area of the school.
    I think the arguments for the old 11+ system have been settled. We are not going backwards. We should aim and hope for a world where all schools deliver for all children, but that's a bit too much like helium. As a newish parent I want my boy to have the best schooling possible, but a lot of that starts at home.
    I have no idea how we make sure all schools deliver the goods, but proper funding, decent buildings etc is a start. I'm not an expert but I also worry that we are starting to overdiagnose conditions in children. Not everything is a syndrome and not every kid will be academic. Do parents find it easier to deal with a struggling child if there is a label?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,038
    CatMan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
    Someone on here recently (can't remember who, sorry), said that the SC will rule the two term limit only applies to consecutive terms. They'll do that.
    That is not easy to do from the wording. The safer course for Trump is to be the VP candidate under a straw man, though this too has an unresolved legal doubt attaching to it, relating to the 12th amendment. Wiki has the details.

    However, it is not Trump but Trumpiteisms that is the potentially enduring phenomenon. So the real question is not Trump but who is his, and the movement's, anointed vicar on earth.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,671
    edited January 2
    The CSE thing just seems to get worse each day.

    Here, a councillor in Tameside challenged the official figures. Was shut down, the council meeting taken off line and he claims he was asked to attend a police interview as his statements could have upset the victims.

    The woman in the glasses shaking her head and shouting him down is now chairs the childrens services scrutiny at Tameside.

    https://x.com/liambillington/status/1874827587555397667?s=61

    The allegation is the council suppressed it to maintain community cohesion.

    https://x.com/liambillington/status/1874827587555397667?s=61

  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,888
    CatMan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
    Someone on here recently (can't remember who, sorry), said that the SC will rule the two term limit only applies to consecutive terms. They'll do that.
    There are many potential ways around this if you control the courts. Putin's had lots of fun with this, including this latest: passing a law that essentially reset the term count to zero.

    "removal of the term "in a row" from the article regulating presidential term limits, discounting previous and current terms before the amendment entered into force;"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russian_constitutional_referendum
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114

    AnneJGP said:

    I seem to remember that prior to the election, people were warning that if Mr Trump was elected there wouldn't be any more presidential elections. So you'd invest your money for years only to have the bet voided?

    There are still elections in Russia, for all the difference it makes. For all dictators like autocracy, they still feel the need to abide by the outward appearance of democracy. Mostly, it's just that they want to appear popular, internally and to the world, but the near-global norm of elections must have some impact.
    Indeed, though our own pretentions of democracy are somewhat questionable when we have a party in power with untrammelled ability to govern when said party only has the active endorsement of 20% of the eligible electorate.
    I'd say that the real definition of democracy is the level of hoopla when the Opposition win.

    If it's "Phone the removal people and leave a bottle of champagne and a nice note" then it's 100% a democracy.

    If the Opposition all fall out of windows in their basements, then it's 100% not.
    What about when they use violence to try and overturn the result, but large sections of the media to stop critical reporting, and threaten judges to try and prevent the operation of the law?
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,689

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Yes, back in the day they were big on the sons of coal miners having the right to be coal miners.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,671

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Yes, back in the day they were big on the sons of coal miners having the right to be coal miners.
    The modern Labour Party would be ashamed of such a thing nowadays
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,689
    CatMan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
    Someone on here recently (can't remember who, sorry), said that the SC will rule the two term limit only applies to consecutive terms. They'll do that.
    Which brings Barack Obama into the picture.
  • CatMan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Trump could award himself a third term by Executive Order. I doubt current rules disallowing that will remain in place by 2028.
    Someone on here recently (can't remember who, sorry), said that the SC will rule the two term limit only applies to consecutive terms. They'll do that.
    I think he's more likely going to try to set up for one of his children to inherit the throne.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,132
    edited January 2
    How long does it take for the new year to really begin properly in terms of things being noticeably different to the previous year? Probably at least 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe even into February.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited January 2

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Here's Bridget Phillipson's CV. Maybe we could see cyclefree's if she thinks it's so deserving of ridicule?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Phillipson



  • Andy_JS said:

    How long does it take for the new year to really begin properly? Probably at least 2 or 3 weeks.

    When you return to work.

    So next Monday for me.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,671
    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,637
    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    I think some people have forgotten that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    Extraordinary!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,980

    AnneJGP said:

    I seem to remember that prior to the election, people were warning that if Mr Trump was elected there wouldn't be any more presidential elections. So you'd invest your money for years only to have the bet voided?

    There are still elections in Russia, for all the difference it makes. For all dictators like autocracy, they still feel the need to abide by the outward appearance of democracy. Mostly, it's just that they want to appear popular, internally and to the world, but the near-global norm of elections must have some impact.
    Indeed, though our own pretentions of democracy are somewhat questionable when we have a party in power with untrammelled ability to govern when said party only has the active endorsement of 20% of the eligible electorate.
    Well, much as I'm not a fan of FPTP, any notion that we should be drawing an equivalence between Britain's political system and that of dictatorships like Russia is so absurd as to disqualify anyone making it from the debate.

    If people choose not to vote, that is their right. Personally, I think it's a bad decision and people have a civic duty to inform themselves and participate but if they opt out, that simply gives those that don't more say.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,489
    edited January 2
    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours. Not even sure what started it, and it’s not like there hasn’t been loads of bad domestic news so far this year.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,888
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
    Perhaps this is how these 'sensible American conservatives' always act? React without actually knowing what they're talking about?

    They might even fit in here on PB... ;)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,966
    Taz said:

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Yes, back in the day they were big on the sons of coal miners having the right to be coal miners.
    The modern Labour Party would be ashamed of such a thing nowadays
    I worked with a chap who had a famous Labour name - minor relative. Staunch Labour voter. Totally uninterested in going into politics though.

    He was rather disgusted to get contacted and offered a candidacy in a hopeless seat - with the strong implication of more if he wanted it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,707
    Andy_JS said:

    "Britain needs an emergency census
    By Rakib Ehsan"

    https://unherd.com/newsroom/britain-needs-an-emergency-census/

    NOOOOOOOOO! (raises sword to the lightning)

    Censuses (censusi?) are prepared for many years in advance, with census rehearsals held two years prior (2029), mathematical techniques refined to compensate for non-responders, checks and coordinations made with NRS (Scotland) and NISRA (Northern Ireland), procedures refined such as the Census Coverage Survey (a check made six months after the census proper), with hundreds of people employed in ONS right now and many thousands of more census people employed in the year of the census. It's like invading Europe in 1943 not 1944: it's not doable.

    Instead mid-year population estimates are issued annually. You can tell how wrong they are by comparing real-life neonatal intensive care unit usage to the estimate.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,707
    Andy_JS said:

    How long does it take for the new year to really begin properly in terms of things being noticeably different to the previous year? Probably at least 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe even into February.

    Trump is inaugurated Mon, 20 Jan 2025, 5:00 pm UK time.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,368
    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    Ironically when Elon's coup succeeds Jess Phillips is replacing the Tomster behind bars.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,966

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
    Perhaps this is how these 'sensible American conservatives' always act? React without actually knowing what they're talking about?

    They might even fit in here on PB... ;)
    The losing of minds in America continues.

    See the comedians on Reddit who are desperately sure that the recent bombings were both MAGA and fake and a false flag. All at the same time.


    “Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,203
    Fpt:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Kemi jumps on the bandwagon:

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1874749990842814606

    The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.

    Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.

    2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.

    Oh FFS!

    Here is the IICSA website - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/index.html.

    Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?

    Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?

    This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
    What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.

    This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
    Why is she demanding one now she is in opposition rather than any time over the last 14 years?
    I suspect because back then she abided by Tory Government policy rather than setting Tory opposition policy. I'm not saying she was right to do so, but I doubt Sir Once-A-Corbynite will be able to make a charge of hypocrisy stick.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before? Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and IKE beat him comfortably, before that Dewey in 1948 who also lost to Truman
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,731
    edited January 2

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
    I don't think it is worth laying anyone this far out, particularly at longish odds. As you say, it ties up your cash.

    I also don't think it is worth betting on anyone at short odds, particularly Vance, for the same reason.

    But it's fun to bet a small amount at long odds where the cost of money doesn't really apply.

    So I've put £2 on each of
    Whitmer 30
    Beshear 38
    AOC 55
    Pritzker 95
    Fetterman 190
    Klobuchar 200

    It means I've got some skin the game to keep my interest. And there may be some interesting trading opportunities nearer the nomination date. I know that at least five of these bets will fail, but it's still possible to make money on trading, even if they all fail, as is likely.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,314

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    Because it was people like you who covered it up. Can you honestly, really honestly, look back and say that you would have been a whistle blower had you seen what was going on? This is your ilk that has covered it up in the name of "community relations" and they looked the other way or in some cases prosecuted parents who wanted their children out of the hands of these rapists. I don't believe, from the posts you have written on here, that you would have been a whistle blower. In fact I believe you would have been an active participant in the cover up and justified it as being a "lesser evil" than "racists" targeting Muslims who perpetrated this evil.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    edited January 2
    New interim Syrian government changes the school curriculum, replacing the phrase "Defending the nation" with "Defending Allah" and the changes also see Evolution and the Big Bang theory being dropped from science teaching.

    'References to the gods worshipped in Syria before Islam, as well as images of their statues, are also being dropped.

    The significance of the great Syrian heroine Queen Zenobia, who once ruled Palmyra in the Roman era, seems to have been downplayed.

    The Assad era has essentially been excised from the curriculum, including poems celebrating both Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez, in Arabic language courses.'

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ln12056ppo

    Though while moving Syria in a more Sunni Islamist direction the new regime still thankfully seems a long way from ISIS jihadism

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 29,368
    The Vegas bomber has been named as Matthew Livelsberger. He was a former serviceman with links to the New Orleans truck murderer.

    They look like linked terrorist events.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,766
    edited January 2

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
    Perhaps this is how these 'sensible American conservatives' always act? React without actually knowing what they're talking about?

    They might even fit in here on PB... ;)
    The losing of minds in America continues.

    See the comedians on Reddit who are desperately sure that the recent bombings were both MAGA and fake and a false flag. All at the same time.


    “Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
    Did you see the comedian at Mar-a-Lago condemning open borders because he'd heard Fox say the killer hired the truck in Mexico two days earlier, but not noticed the retraction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before? Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and IKE beat him comfortably, before that Dewey in 1948 who also lost to Truman
    Actually, on a serious note it was I think Nixon in 1968.
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 374

    Fpt:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Kemi jumps on the bandwagon:

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1874749990842814606

    The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.

    Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.

    2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.

    Oh FFS!

    Here is the IICSA website - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/index.html.

    Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?

    Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?

    This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
    What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.

    This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
    Why is she demanding one now she is in opposition rather than any time over the last 14 years?
    I suspect because back then she abided by Tory Government policy rather than setting Tory opposition policy. I'm not saying she was right to do so, but I doubt Sir Once-A-Corbynite will be able to make a charge of hypocrisy stick.
    Of course the Tories did nothing for 14 years.

    Of course the Tories had enough of their own MPs accused of sexual perversion at the time to open up too many cans of worms.

    Of course Starmer record of DPP actually shows far more progress in dealing with Criminal Gangs if various descriptions

    Of course those facts don't suit opportunists like Farage, Trump., Musk ans sadly hapless Kemi has to be seen to join in for fear of losing more votes to the islamaphobic hate mobs.

    Of course the likes of Farage, Trump and Musk know all about the perpetrators of rape and sexual attacks being friends of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Maxwell

    No doubt the desperate red top right wing media will be desperate to support fascists like Tommy Robinson and support the probability of more riots.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before? Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and IKE beat him comfortably, before that Dewey in 1948 who also lost to Truman
    Actually, on a serious note it was I think Nixon in 1968.
    Nixon was defeated in 1960, he was not nominee again until 1968 ie 8 years later not 4.

    Goldwater was the GOP nominee in 1964
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Here's Bridget Phillipson's CV. Maybe we could see cyclefree's if she thinks it's so deserving of ridicule?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Phillipson



    It does feel rather laboured. I mean, I grew up in a house that had no heating upstairs, and went to a comprehensive school (one that was going through a bad patch) and then went off to uni, got a first, worked as a civil servant and a lecturer, then went into teaching and now run my own business.

    None of that makes me poor or deserving of special praise. In fact, I'd say I have a pretty affluent background one way and another and I certainly wouldn't have dared to walk out of a well-paid teaching job no matter how miserable we all were and start on my own without a bit of capital behind me.

    And although I had lots of help from my parents none of my actual work was for them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before? Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and IKE beat him comfortably, before that Dewey in 1948 who also lost to Truman
    Actually, on a serious note it was I think Nixon in 1968.
    Nixon was defeated in 1960, he was not nominee again until 1968 ie 8 years later not 4.

    Goldwater was the GOP nominee in 1964
    Ok, fair point, I hadn't seen that part of your post.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    Trump won the 2016 presidential election and I said '..having never been elected President before'
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,888

    The Vegas bomber has been named as Matthew Livelsberger. He was a former serviceman with links to the New Orleans truck murderer.

    They look like linked terrorist events.

    From an hour ago:

    "Raia also said the FBI now believes no one else was involved in the attack. Yesterday, the agency said it believed Jabbar did not act alone. But Raia said that after conducting hundreds of interviews, combing through Jabbar's social media posts and his electronic devices there was nothing to suggest he had worked with others"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn4x88455qpt
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    Trump won the 2016 presidential election and I said '..having never been elected President before'
    He wasn't elected. He was the winner of the electoral college.

    *exercise to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin reaches stage 2*
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    Trump won the 2016 presidential election and I said '..having never been elected President before'
    He wasn't elected. He was the winner of the electoral college.

    *exercise to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin reaches stage 2*
    Which is what you need to be elected president in the USA, the popular vote is irrelevant
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,489
    One more Russian helicopter, this one shot down by the Ukranians close to the front lines.

    https://x.com/warmonitor3/status/1874859785520320698

    That’s four in two days.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,966

    Fpt:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Kemi jumps on the bandwagon:

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1874749990842814606

    The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.

    Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.

    2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.

    Oh FFS!

    Here is the IICSA website - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/index.html.

    Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?

    Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?

    This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
    What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
    The IICSA Report - nothing because the government - disgracefully - refused to take action on its recommendations. See https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/05/24/kicking-issues-into-the-long-grass/

    The Drew Review was used to improve the approach of South Yorkshire Police.

    Operation Stovewood: run by the NCA is the largest criminal enforcement investigation into non-family CSE. It has identified 1100 victims, has 50 investigations outstanding and has led to 36 convictions.

    The Jay Report was used to improve services within Rotherham Council which was put into special measures. The council leader and head of children's services left.

    It is something. By no means enough, of course.

    But what actual use will yet another inquiry costing millions, reporting in a decade or so and telling us stuff we already know be? Because my suspicion is that this is not really about joining dots or understanding the manifold causes of male sexual violence - let alone taking effective action against it - but political point-scoring and a disguised fight about immigration, in which the needs of the victims - girls mostly - will largely be ignored.
    Kemi is absolutely right to demand a full public enquiry. We quite rightly had one when postmasters' lives and livelihoods were ruined by public servants whose actions bordered on criminal. The victims of the grooming gangs deserve just as much justice, and the enablers of this abuse must be made to answer for their behaviour, and the causes brought into the open and eliminated from the public sphere.

    This initiative is aligned to Kemi's long-held public stances on culture, and the stress she places on public bodies that don't work. It isn't just necessary, it feels authentic to her and what she stands for.
    Why is she demanding one now she is in opposition rather than any time over the last 14 years?
    I suspect because back then she abided by Tory Government policy rather than setting Tory opposition policy. I'm not saying she was right to do so, but I doubt Sir Once-A-Corbynite will be able to make a charge of hypocrisy stick.
    Of course the Tories did nothing for 14 years.

    Of course the Tories had enough of their own MPs accused of sexual perversion at the time to open up too many cans of worms.

    Of course Starmer record of DPP actually shows far more progress in dealing with Criminal Gangs if various descriptions

    Of course those facts don't suit opportunists like Farage, Trump., Musk ans sadly hapless Kemi has to be seen to join in for fear of losing more votes to the islamaphobic hate mobs.

    Of course the likes of Farage, Trump and Musk know all about the perpetrators of rape and sexual attacks being friends of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms Maxwell

    No doubt the desperate red top right wing media will be desperate to support fascists like Tommy Robinson and support the probability of more riots.
    Apart from things like Mrs May, as Home Sec. ordering the police to investigate.

    Which caused the scandals to be revealed.

    Which upset a couple of people, here.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,966

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
    Perhaps this is how these 'sensible American conservatives' always act? React without actually knowing what they're talking about?

    They might even fit in here on PB... ;)
    The losing of minds in America continues.

    See the comedians on Reddit who are desperately sure that the recent bombings were both MAGA and fake and a false flag. All at the same time.


    “Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
    Did you see the comedian at Mar-a-Lago condemning open borders because he'd heard Fox say the killer hired the truck in Mexico two days earlier, but not noticed the retraction.
    No. But that doesn’t surprise me, in the least. No doubt on Twatter, in response to bullshit posted on Twatter?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,580
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    Trump won the 2016 presidential election and I said '..having never been elected President before'
    He wasn't elected. He was the winner of the electoral college.

    *exercise to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin reaches stage 2*
    Harris is more likely to run for California Governor in 2026 when Newsom is term limited whether he runs for POTUS in 2028 or not
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,966
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    I agree. One of the more unpleasant posts on here as is the one by cyclefree on the last thread. The one featuring the line.......

    "......Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol."

    Yuck!
    Hereditary privilege is a big thing in the labour party.
    Here's Bridget Phillipson's CV. Maybe we could see cyclefree's if she thinks it's so deserving of ridicule?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Phillipson



    It does feel rather laboured. I mean, I grew up in a house that had no heating upstairs, and went to a comprehensive school (one that was going through a bad patch) and then went off to uni, got a first, worked as a civil servant and a lecturer, then went into teaching and now run my own business.

    None of that makes me poor or deserving of special praise. In fact, I'd say I have a pretty affluent background one way and another and I certainly wouldn't have dared to walk out of a well-paid teaching job no matter how miserable we all were and start on my own without a bit of capital behind me.

    And although I had lots of help from my parents none of my actual work was for them.
    {finds a double case of magnums of Chateaux De Chasseliere}

    You ‘ad central heating?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,731
    Andy_JS said:

    How long does it take for the new year to really begin properly in terms of things being noticeably different to the previous year? Probably at least 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe even into February.

    It rained all year yesterday.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    MaxPB said:

    FPT...

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    And yet if it were up to the likes of @bondegezou the whole thing would never have come to light and all of the people trying to whistleblow would have been shut down and threatened. The rape gangs would still be out there continuing with tacit support from the police and Labour councils to avoid "community tensions". It's the establishment that covered it up and is trying it's hardest to keep the story out of the media to protect themselves for all of the failures. So if Musk is ruffling their feathers then more power to him. Every single person who was involved in covering up the rape gangs or thought that the cover up was "justified" in the name of "community relations" should not only be nowhere near any kind of power, they should be in jail for a very, very long time.

    Labour is protecting their own councillors and voters by covering it up and if Musk makes some of their lives more difficult or difficult enough that they top themselves then that's a good outcome. They oversaw the rape and coverup of thousands of girls being raped because the rapists were Muslim and they didn't want to upset Muslim voters. In any other country all of those people responsible would be hounded to suicide, here we just tut at the people trying to get them put in prison.
    If you are going to make unpleasant accusations, what about you try to explain yourself, Max? In what way would the likes of me have stopped this coming to light? What makes you think that I would cover up horrendous illegal activity like this? How am I responsible for any of this or anything like this?
    Because it was people like you who covered it up. Can you honestly, really honestly, look back and say that you would have been a whistle blower had you seen what was going on? This is your ilk that has covered it up in the name of "community relations" and they looked the other way or in some cases prosecuted parents who wanted their children out of the hands of these rapists. I don't believe, from the posts you have written on here, that you would have been a whistle blower. In fact I believe you would have been an active participant in the cover up and justified it as being a "lesser evil" than "racists" targeting Muslims who perpetrated this evil.
    Are you pissed Max? A hangover from New years eve?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    Barnesian said:

    Andy_JS said:

    How long does it take for the new year to really begin properly in terms of things being noticeably different to the previous year? Probably at least 2 or 3 weeks. Maybe even into February.

    It rained all year yesterday.
    So the new year is much the same as the last two?
  • Shecorns88Shecorns88 Posts: 374

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.

    Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
    I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
    Shame on you Max.

    Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.

    He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
    People are complex creatures. It's entirely possible for Tommy Robinson to hold nasty racist views, and yet to also to care genuinely on some level about crimes against children. We have a very one-dimensional view of humanity these days where one is either entirely on the side of righteousness, like Judi Dench or Joanna Lumley, or wholly on the side of wickedness, like Vlad Putin, Donald Trump and Tommy Robinson. Then we have a furious debate on where people like Elon Musk, Jeremy Clarkson, the Pope, King Charles, Keir Starmer etc. belong, on one side or the other, and people like Phillip Schofield flip over. It's silly.
    Its possible, but false.

    Someone who was both racist and genuinely cared about crimes against children would not deliberately attempt to derail the trials of those who were abusing children.

    Its possible to pick and choose your moments to make a stink, and derailing the trial of those accused is not the time unlessyou don't actually give a shit about
    the victims and are entirely self-centred and interested solely in making the story about
    yourself and your agenda, and let the victims go swivel if they want to see any
    justice.
    Or top stupid to appreciate the implications of your actions
    He's had it explained to him in fairly short words, hasn't he?
    You can draw

    Just caught up with the last thread and HYUFD's simplistic defence of the 11+

    Having read his response to my post, I have to come to the conclusion that HY's IQ just isn't high enough to understand more nuanced argument!

    Send him to the local Secondary Modern!

    I benefitted from passing the 11+ and attending a grammar school. In my case the primary school pushed me for it (I guess via mum and dad). I don't think those who didn't even take it would have felt that they failed, but that's an oddity of where I grew up, being outside the catchment area of the school.
    I think the arguments for the old 11+ system have been settled. We are not going backwards. We should aim and hope for a world where all schools deliver for all children, but that's a bit too much like helium. As a newish parent I want my boy to have the best schooling possible, but a lot of that starts at home.
    I have no idea how we make sure all schools deliver the goods, but proper funding, decent buildings etc is a start. I'm not an expert but I also worry that we are starting to overdiagnose conditions in children. Not everything is a syndrome and not every kid will be academic. Do parents find it easier to deal with a struggling child if there is a label?
    I sent to a Grammar School founded in 1563. It had one of the great British Rocks stars, a knighted Actor and a great literary Doctor amongst it's old boys

    It was given notice that it would be turned in to a Comprehensive 6th Form mixed college, like many other old boys and girl grammars by a Conservative Education Minister.

    Our Headmaster at the time tore up his Conservative Membership letter at Speech Day.

    Her name Margaret Hilda Thatcher

    No lessons needed or believed from any Tories about the Grammar System.

    BTW the was at the time an extra 13 plus that any pupil a Secondary Modern School who was thought more suited to Grammar School Education could take in some Council areas.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,906
    A similarly meaningless poll:
    Democratic Presidential Polling:

    Harris: 22%
    Clinton: 11%
    Sanders: 10%
    Newsom: 7%
    Buttigieg: 7%
    Warren: 5%
    Klobuchar: 3%
    Manchin: 3%
    AOC: 3%
    Cuomo: 3%
    Abrams: 2%
    Williamson: 2%

    HarrisX / Nov 26, 2024 / n=756


    Three octogenarians (by the time of the next election) in that list.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,358
    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Someone we've never heard of.....interesting....anyone offering odds on Ed Davey?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,022

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Someone we've never heard of.....interesting....anyone offering odds on Ed Davey?
    We could send Brian Rose back.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,852
    Barnesian said:

    On topic, I agree re Harris. I disagree re the other three. Oddschecker don't appear to have the 2028 nominee market up but for 2028 winner outright they list Newsom 9/1 (Starsports, mostly 8/1 with bigger names), Shapiro 12/1 (also Starsports, 11/1 with BetFred), and Whitmer 20/1 (several, including Ladbrokes). Harris is 50/1 (BV), which is justified for someone who has had - and blown - her chance.

    There may be some value in Whitmer; I don't see any in the others. None is a clear front-runner, a lot can happen between now and 2028, including the Republicans really rigging the system (though that wouldn't matter for the nomination, when those odds are more widely available), and it'll likely be a wide field. At this moment, I'd steer clear of the entire market at the short end. It's a long time to tie money up for, laying favourites; the better value will be on outsiders who could become front-runners.

    The Republican nomination may be interesting. Marco Rubio is 50/1 with BetVictor, which is worth looking at as someone who could potentially straddle the MAGA/mainstream divide (which is still there, if concealed for now) - though his path to the White House is difficult if Trump is no longer president and he's unlikely to get the golden endorsement if Trump still is there. But if the world has moved on, he could be in the right place.

    On Betfair you can back Newsom at 12.5, Shapiro at 16, and Whitmer at 30.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/33761494/multi-market?marketIds=1.235690682
    I don't think it is worth laying anyone this far out, particularly at longish odds. As you say, it ties up your cash.

    I also don't think it is worth betting on anyone at short odds, particularly Vance, for the same reason.

    But it's fun to bet a small amount at long odds where the cost of money doesn't really apply.

    So I've put £2 on each of
    Whitmer 30
    Beshear 38
    AOC 55
    Pritzker 95
    Fetterman 190
    Klobuchar 200

    It means I've got some skin the game to keep my interest. And there may be some interesting trading opportunities nearer the nomination date. I know that at least five of these bets will fail, but it's still possible to make money on trading, even if they all fail, as is likely.
    That's not a stupid strategy. I mean, I don't think any of those look particularly likely candidates - but then again you're getting odds that are appropriate.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,358
    Omnium said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I would lay everyone for the Democratic nomination in 2028. Or at least I would if I didn't need to lock money up for three years, which makes the whole thing not worth while getting involved in.

    Harris because she just lost by more than Hillary. And she only got the gig because she was VP before. I simply can't see her standing. And if she stood she'd lose.

    Newsom is slick and smart. Unfortunately, he's also Californian. And he's not even particularly popular with Democrats in California. I would lay him too.

    Shapiro could get the nomination. But we have no idea if he'll gain a national presence in the next four years.

    Basically, who knows which Democrats will have a good three years, and which will not? It could be that someone we've never heard of manages to grab the headlines.

    A lot also depends on Trump's second term. Will he impose tariffs, introduce another bunch of inflation and be really unpopular? Or will the economy bounce back strongly? Either is possible.

    Someone we've never heard of.....interesting....anyone offering odds on Ed Davey?
    We could send Brian Rose back.
    I was going to suggest Count Binface but think he is a bit too sane for the US electorate.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,045
    So, I’ve just been on X where it looks like the grooming scandal continues to run and Musk continues to bait Starmer

    Can someone tell me 1. If this is just one of those things that’s a bit of a bubble on X and 2. Why this has come up again now?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,766

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    There’s a fair few usually sensible American conservatives who appear to have joined the Tommy Robinson fan club in the past 24 hours.

    I can only suspect that they haven’t actually researched the case properly. American judges can and do lock people up for contempt of court, so it’s not like the concept doesn’t make sense to Amercians. “Secret” trials with reporting restrictions also happen in the US, for much the same reasons they happen anywhere else.

    All very weird.
    Perhaps this is how these 'sensible American conservatives' always act? React without actually knowing what they're talking about?

    They might even fit in here on PB... ;)
    The losing of minds in America continues.

    See the comedians on Reddit who are desperately sure that the recent bombings were both MAGA and fake and a false flag. All at the same time.


    “Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
    Did you see the comedian at Mar-a-Lago condemning open borders because he'd heard Fox say the killer hired the truck in Mexico two days earlier, but not noticed the retraction.
    No. But that doesn’t surprise me, in the least. No doubt on Twatter, in response to bullshit posted on Twatter?
    Or Trump's own Truth Social. TSE posted a screenshot on the last thread which is where I saw it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,114
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    If the Dems are suicidal enough to run Harris again by fixing the primary for her like they did for Hilary in 2016 then they deserve to lose.

    I can't see them running Harris again. When was the last time a defeated nominee of one of the main parties in a presidential election was nominated by that party again at the following presidential election having never been elected President before?
    2024

    *grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
    Trump won the 2016 presidential election and I said '..having never been elected President before'
    He wasn't elected. He was the winner of the electoral college.

    *exercise to see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin reaches stage 2*
    Harris is more likely to run for California Governor in 2026 when Newsom is term limited whether he runs for POTUS in 2028 or not
    To be honest, I agree, particularly given if there's an agitation for 'a new generation' despite the fact she's so much younger than Trump I think her age would count against her.

    To be honest, a more useful an interesting market is next Vice President. If Trump dies, which has to be a fairly high likelihood given his age and state of health, Vance would need not only a new Veep but one that he can get past Congress, which narrows the field dramatically. Or indeed, if Vance were to die or resign, Trump faces the same problem (with more urgency).

    Rubio might be a good bet there.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,671

    Taz said:

    There’s been a lot of crazy takes on the political prisoner that is Tommy Robinson by US commentators 🙄🙄🙄🙄

    This takes the biscuit

    https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1874644085459529883?s=61

    Ironically when Elon's coup succeeds Jess Phillips is replacing the Tomster behind bars.
    Change replacing to joins then 👍
Sign In or Register to comment.