A lot of people, particularly in England, were surprised by George W Bush and couldn't understand how he beat Al Gore. I tend to think that there is potential for the same to be true in this electoral cycle. Clinton simply isn't as good as Obama at fighting an election campaign, and the air of inevitability that some would claim for her election runs the risk of complacency and entitlement.
I think it will be hard for her to capture the imagination of the public when she's been part of the scene for about two and a half decades. There's definitely potential for a Republican nominee to claim the mantle of the breath of fresh air that can attract Independents.
I don't know who that might be, but then I wouldn't have credited George W Bush with much of a chance. Clinton is beatable. She doesn't inspire and I don't think she has wide appeal.
But if she is beatable in the National Election then she should definitely be beatable in Democratic Primaries. If she is relying on "only person who can beat the GOP" then it's rather a vulnerable position since it can only worsen through a protracted campaign.
She's already lost one Democratic Primary campaign, so she is certainly beatable.
Right now I get the feeling that her campaign are trying really hard to make her nomination seem inevitable to scare off any serious competition. They might succeed.
Tbf she was pretty unlucky the last time. Obama has been a very ordinary president but he was probably the greatest campaigner/candidate that the US has seen since the war. His victory against her was far more remarkable than anything he achieved thereafter.
But it was 8 years ago. There is a time and a place and I fear it has passed.
It taxes you when you are dead and taxes you on your lifetime's strivings and for ordinary people usually manifests itself in their house which has been their security for a long time. Being taxed on death of course makes 'life' difficult because who knows when you might die?
Alex You can pay a lump sum and get an immediate need annuity to cover social care costs for the rest of your life
I don't understand the relevance? If the Conservatives want to take people out of IHT (/reduce IHT liability) they should just do so across the board. Saying that they will only reduce IHT for "the family home", even though the inheritors will likely not want to live in it, and creates disincentives to sell an un-needed asset (when it is no longer suitable for the elderly parent(s) just creates complication and difficulty.
And what happens if the individuals dying aren't passing on their estate to their children (/don't have any)?
I expect that Clinton will win, unless the Republicans have an attack of sanity and select JEB Bush. Then there might be a contest. The thickos of the tea party however would rather loose (again) and stay pure rather than pragmatic. The fact than Republicans keep loosing because the tea party would rather lose than be attractive to a majority should send a warning to the usual crowd of thicko tory backbenchers.
The last two Republic Presidential candidates were not tea party candidates. They were the most mainstream Republican candidates in the field.
I think they lost because they weren't as good as George W at connecting with the public, and they were up against Obama (rather than Gore or Kerry).
A lot of people who prophesise doom for the Republicans forget that they won quite comfortably under George W in 2004.
It taxes you when you are dead and taxes you on your lifetime's strivings and for ordinary people usually manifests itself in their house which has been their security for a long time. Being taxed on death of course makes 'life' difficult because who knows when you might die?
Precisely. And just at a time when you are trying to come to terms with the death of a much loved parent.
Labour don't seem to understand this. They are happy to knock on the doors of grieving families demanding they clear out, sell up and pay up.
Recent photographs of Hillary Clinton show a rather barmy looking elderly woman heavily into Botox and plastic surgery. I'm not optimistic of her chances.
I'm a big Hillary non-fan, but this comment reeks of sexism.
Hillary is the USA's Angela Merkel, but unlike the wise burghers of Germany they've not put her in power yet.
I'm really quite looking forwards to her being elected. (Obviously I've bet against as she's far too short, but I do think she'll be a game-changing president in the way that Obama would have liked to have been.)
We'll certainly finish up with a PM that can't quite live in those circles. Cameron is better in that Merkel likes him, whereas Ed is an unknown.
The world will be run by women for a bit - Merkel, Clinton, and Lagarde. On paper that looks like a good thing. I'd certainly consider voting for that triumvirate rather than any UK party on may 7th.
Mr. Owls, if I walk by you as you eat lunch, and refuse to steal your pork chop, have I given you a pork chop hand-out?
There's a difference between putting a 'positive' presentation on an idea, and distorting reality. The government does not own every person and every pound in the United Kingdom. People's earnings are not state property. Lower taxes are not state hand-outs.
I'm not arguing against you expressing yourself as you wish, and think it's right you do so [as right as it is for me to point out I think your use of language is not necessarily in accordance with reality or reason].
Alex It avoids the need to sell the family home to cover costs
I wasn't suggesting the need to sell it to cover costs. I was suggesting the "need" to sell it because nobody is living in it any more! What's going to happen? - hundreds of £1m homes standing empty waiting for their former inhabitants to drop off their mortal coil?
That sums up in one single post the Lefts attitude to your hard earned chattels. It's our money and we just give you handouts out of what's left .......
Alex You can pay a lump sum and get an immediate need annuity to cover social care costs for the rest of your life
I don't understand the relevance? If the Conservatives want to take people out of IHT (/reduce IHT liability) they should just do so across the board. Saying that they will only reduce IHT for "the family home", even though the inheritors will likely not want to live in it, and creates disincentives to sell an un-needed asset (when it is no longer suitable for the elderly parent(s) just creates complication and difficulty.
And what happens if the individuals dying aren't passing on their estate to their children (/don't have any)?
The Australians have an interesting approach (not totally dissimilar to the LDs here) of no inheritance tax, but houses are treated as a Capital Gain when they are sold.
Mildly amused that political dynasties are more powerful in the US, whereas the UK (with its monarchy) has less [although they do exist].
Incidentally, one might argue such a long term trend was important in the decline of the Roman Republic.
Does the Tea Party and demographic shifts still tilt things against the reds?
Agreed that the UK seems to have fewer dynasties. The difference, of course, is that the US has the option to chuck out any that they dislike enough. Would that they had done that with George Bush. But at least he did go after a few years. The big problem here is class, with the royals at the top. On the other hand, like the weather, the royal family does spur endless gossip.
I'm no expert, but it strikes me that something the US and Rome had in common was a pretty broad willingness to incorporate outsiders into their system, America by immigration (even the slaves, who played a major part in forming the society, however painfully) and Rome by conquest. Both also had/have a pretty broad acceptance of religious practice.
I expect that Clinton will win, unless the Republicans have an attack of sanity and select JEB Bush. Then there might be a contest. The thickos of the tea party however would rather loose (again) and stay pure rather than pragmatic. The fact than Republicans keep loosing because the tea party would rather lose than be attractive to a majority should send a warning to the usual crowd of thicko tory backbenchers.
A lot of people who prophesise doom for the Republicans forget that they won quite comfortably under George W in 2004.
Not so.
Bush's narrow win in Ohio tipped the electoral college his way otherwise it was President Kerry.
The continuing demographic changes in swing states especially with latinos will further assist the Democrats. It is a significant weakness for the GOP that they have failed to address.
Alex You can pay a lump sum and get an immediate need annuity to cover social care costs for the rest of your life
I don't understand the relevance? If the Conservatives want to take people out of IHT (/reduce IHT liability) they should just do so across the board. Saying that they will only reduce IHT for "the family home", even though the inheritors will likely not want to live in it, and creates disincentives to sell an un-needed asset (when it is no longer suitable for the elderly parent(s) just creates complication and difficulty.
And what happens if the individuals dying aren't passing on their estate to their children (/don't have any)?
The Australians have an interesting approach (not totally dissimilar to the LDs here) of no inheritance tax, but houses are treated as a Capital Gain when they are sold.
DavidL Hillary is the only Democratic who beats the GOP top tier in the polls, she is the only chance of preventing a GOP win, which historically would be the norm after 2 terms of a Democratic president
Pure name recognition at this stage I think. The e-mail stories were very damaging.
Indeed. In the latest round of polling in key swing states, Hillary only reliably won in Virginia. She was losing or in a statistical tie in North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa to the top GOP candidates.
Mr. Toms, jein. Hard to compare due to both differing times and wildly different longevity (the 'Empire' lasted over two thousand years, whereas America's still very new).
Some believe accepting outsiders was a weakness of Rome rather than a strength. When armies started to consist of barbarians it only accelerated the vicious cycle of regicide and civil war.
She's doomed. She's old, she's past it, and the email server is a scandal too far. It's probably a really good idea to see if there are any interesting second alternative candidates. (Bernie Saunders doesn't count.)
And if she did win, I think she'd lose to any sensible Republican. Really, 2016 is the Republicans to lose. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to prefer ideological purity to power.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
The public think that Inheritance Tax is the most unfair of all taxes.
Then reduce it across the board in a simple way. Don't finesse it across different categories of assets and give loads of work to accountants and tax lawyers!
Alex The proceeds of sale would go to care costs if no annuity taken out, rather than staying within the family, of course if one half of a couple is in care the other not, it would also allow them to stay there
Key phrases there for me. No complacency [or, at least, the avoidance of it and therefore recognition overt complacency is a danger], and a sense of engagement.
2015 will see a re-emergence of sovereign debt worries.
But they won't be in Dublin or Rome or Madrid. They'll be in Caracas and Quito. Ecuador ($100bn) and Venezuala ($400bn between the state and PVdSA) will both go bust in a $60 oil world. Petrobras might also default.
I expect that Clinton will win, unless the Republicans have an attack of sanity and select JEB Bush. Then there might be a contest. The thickos of the tea party however would rather loose (again) and stay pure rather than pragmatic. The fact than Republicans keep loosing because the tea party would rather lose than be attractive to a majority should send a warning to the usual crowd of thicko tory backbenchers.
A lot of people who prophesise doom for the Republicans forget that they won quite comfortably under George W in 2004.
Not so.
Bush's narrow win in Ohio tipped the electoral college his way otherwise it was President Kerry.
The continuing demographic changes in swing states especially with latinos will further assist the Democrats. It is a significant weakness for the GOP that they have failed to address.
That's another reason why Marco Rubio is my pick for the Republican nomination, and the Presidency.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
If Hilary runs she wins both the nomination and the presidency and probably for two terms.
Why?
1. There is no significant challenger to Hilary in the Democratic nomination.
2. The Presidential election will be framed by Hilary becoming the first woman President as in 08 it was Obama being the first black President.
3. In 08 Hilary was a great candidate but was beaten by an outstanding one in Obama. The Clinton machine remains very powerful.
4. The GOP need to connect to swing voters by nominating someone who appears a member of the human race but that candidate has to tack right to secure the nomination.
5. Swing state demographics will continue to favour the Democrats.
"The only significant trend the data has picked up since last week is a very slight softening of SNP support in constituencies in Scotland. A striking 3/5 of the seats in the SNP column are classified as 'too close to call'. Since April 4th we have moved 3 constituencies from 'leaning SNP' to 'too close to call', 4 constituencies from 'likely SNP' to 'leaning SNP' and a further 7 from 'SNP' to 'likely SNP'. However, the trend has so far only reduced their total by one seat - Dunfermline and West Fife - in which Labour is now seen as narrowly ahead."
Despite the above, current projections give the SNP 55 seats.
Alex The proceeds of sale would go to care costs if no annuity taken out, rather than staying within the family, of course if one half of a couple is in care the other not, it would also allow them to stay there
I still don't see the relevance to my point but then maybe I'm missing something obvious. Of course the proceeds of sale would stay within the family - my point is that these would now be subject to inheritance tax. So the policy creates a disincentive to sell, even though there is absolutely no other rational reason not to do so.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Quite, some poor taxpayer still has to finance this early retirement of course which does nothing for the value of public services. It does feather the nest of yet another hypocritical don't do as I do do as I say leftie though.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
The public think that Inheritance Tax is the most unfair of all taxes.
Then reduce it across the board in a simple way. Don't finesse it across different categories of assets and give loads of work to accountants and tax lawyers!
I agree, I would prefer outright abolition.
Right, must dash. Must make supper before my wife calls me to Poldark.
2015 will see a re-emergence of sovereign debt worries.
But they won't be in Dublin or Rome or Madrid. They'll be in Caracas and Quito. Ecuador ($100bn) and Venezuala ($400bn between the state and PVdSA) will both go bust in a $60 oil world. Petrobras might also default.
Thanks! And the rising USD will put pressure on countries with lots of USD debt eg Brazil. SE Asia in general not looking good either. But it only gets going once we get in October, not before then. The real action will be in 2016 and 2017.
Bit of a quiet time in the markets right now though with endless chopping back and forth - I'm out of things but not ruling out a rally on the Dow to around the 18,500 area. 18,600 area is key resistance, and I'd love a buying opportunity around the 16,300-16,400 area in early June - not sure right now if I'll get my wish though!
Mr. Toms, jein. Hard to compare due to both differing times and wildly different longevity (the 'Empire' lasted over two thousand years, whereas America's still very new).
Some believe accepting outsiders was a weakness of Rome rather than a strength. When armies started to consist of barbarians it only accelerated the vicious cycle of regicide and civil war.
I'm beginning to think a contemporary measure of growing social incohesion and downright excessive bureaucracy might be the growth of acronym usage. These days I usually just delete emails that have more than maybe two or three.
Hillary would be the second oldest first term President in history, wouldn't she? Must be some sort of danger of health events during a gruelling campaign.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
So basically you spat your dummy out and left instead of continuing in the public services you value so much. . I can only imagine the collective sighs of relief in the department as you closed the door for the very last time.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
You'll forgive me for pointing out your posting history doesn't agree.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Quite, some poor taxpayer still has to finance this early retirement of course which does nothing for the value of public services. It does feather the nest of yet another hypocritical don't do as I do do as I say leftie though.
Politics of envy from PB Tories is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Gives me a warm feeling that some think they are funding my life of leisure. When in fact all i did was take my pension i was contractually entitled to propped up by a crap annuity.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
You'll forgive me for pointing out your posting history doesn't agree.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
No its you who is talking the spheroids. 'not working for Lansley' What a load of cobblers. Millions of us had to work for sodding Brown. What a load of snivelling sanctimonious rubbish you spout.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Quite, some poor taxpayer still has to finance this early retirement of course which does nothing for the value of public services. It does feather the nest of yet another hypocritical don't do as I do do as I say leftie though.
Politics of envy from PB Tories is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The politics of envy flows from every side from time to time - frankly does it matter if it is hypocritical or not then?
Alex True, though not if one half of a couple dies in care, one in the home
Depends which one dies, first, however this conversation started with my scenario which only had one elderly parent left anyway. As I've mentioned in another post, there does seem to be a bit of an assumption in the whole nonsense policy that all people dying leave their estates to their children (if they even have them!).
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
No its you who is talking the spheroids. 'not working for Lansley' What a load of cobblers. Millions of us had to work for sodding Brown. What a load of snivelling sanctimonious rubbish you spout.
Thanks whereas you regard yourself as a well respected poster i assume
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Quite, some poor taxpayer still has to finance this early retirement of course which does nothing for the value of public services. It does feather the nest of yet another hypocritical don't do as I do do as I say leftie though.
Politics of envy from PB Tories is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Gives me a warm feeling that some think they are funding my life of leisure. When in fact all i did was take my pension i was contractually entitled to propped up by a crap annuity.
You don't even know I'm not a PB tory but anyone that disagrees with you is to you is a Tory.
It could also be someone who just thinks your party is just a bunch of lunatics having seen the country destroyed by Labour three times in my lifetime.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
You'll forgive me for pointing out your posting history doesn't agree.
Proof?
I can't be bothered searching your many whines about how terribly you where treated. You have previously stated that you went early as you would be adversely affected if you didn't. Your posting history stands, people can make their own decisions on which of us is correct.
They'll legalise cannabis but only after the global economy turns DOWN post October this year - if you look back through history it's always occurred when the economy has gone through a massive trauma and society decides its got better things to do than make criminals out of a lot of recreational users. Look at when prohibition in the US ended - 1933 in the nadir of the Great Depression - no coincidence there.
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
There is no stop loss at 10, you'd better recheck the market.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
There is no stop loss at 10, you'd better recheck the market.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
I have taken a screen grab just in case there is some dispute at a later stage. It says "Stop loss 10 seat", in the same place at it says Stop loss 200 seat for the major parties. It does not appear in the info but does when placing a bet.
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
You'll forgive me for pointing out your posting history doesn't agree.
Proof?
I can't be bothered searching your many whines about how terribly you where treated. You have previously stated that you went early as you would be adversely affected if you didn't. Your posting history stands, people can make their own decisions on which of us is correct.
Not so.
Anyone my age kept their original pension rights so I believe i may beat you on the specialized subject of BJO's pension.
Although quite amusing you are obsessed. Hey Ho 25 days to EICIPM
Why do you want the state to take the decision on how money that you have earned is spent?
Because I value public services and fairness more than personal wealth. I like taxation on those like me who can afford it without any real hardship
Surprised you took early retirement to maximise your pension in that case. We remember you happily telling us that's why you went early, even if you don't.
Not working for Lansley was my prime reason.
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
You'll forgive me for pointing out your posting history doesn't agree.
Proof?
I can't be bothered searching your many whines about how terribly you where treated. You have previously stated that you went early as you would be adversely affected if you didn't. Your posting history stands, people can make their own decisions on which of us is correct.
Not so.
Anyone my age kept their original pension rights so I believe i may beat you on the specialized subject of BJO's pension.
Although quite amusing you are obsessed. Hey Ho 25 days to EICIPM
Happy to leave it and allow everyone to make up their minds who is correct.
Alex You can pay a lump sum and get an immediate need annuity to cover social care costs for the rest of your life
I don't understand the relevance? If the Conservatives want to take people out of IHT (/reduce IHT liability) they should just do so across the board. Saying that they will only reduce IHT for "the family home", even though the inheritors will likely not want to live in it, and creates disincentives to sell an un-needed asset (when it is no longer suitable for the elderly parent(s) just creates complication and difficulty.
And what happens if the individuals dying aren't passing on their estate to their children (/don't have any)?
The Australians have an interesting approach (not totally dissimilar to the LDs here) of no inheritance tax, but houses are treated as a Capital Gain when they are sold.
But the Australian Federal govt do not levy stamp duty. It seems that the states can levy it on 'transactions', but again it seems to be exempt on certain property.
So if it is not levied on buying your home (is it? or if so what rate?) then that makes a bit of a difference on later valuing its sale (ie nthat of your home) as a capital gain.
I am not saying the idea is good or bad, but we need to consider taxation in the round.
Hillary would be the second oldest first term President in history, wouldn't she? Must be some sort of danger of health events during a gruelling campaign.
How did it go on the Sunday politics East Midlands? I was at work so missed it.
A hyperactive interviewer had only 20 minutes for 6 candidates so she asked us all 3 questions (HS2, UKIP impact, young voters) and constantly cut each of us off in mid-sentence: it wasn't a very inspiring programme! Everyone thinks they won and I did get a couple of people on the doorstep later saying they'd been swayed to me as "the most reasonable candidate", but I think a chaotic goalless draw is probably nearer the mark. Ironically, the two people who couldn't participate (UKIP and Men & Boys) and were given two-minute interviews pre-recorded got a much easier ride. That's show business...
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
There is no stop loss at 10, you'd better recheck the market.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
I have taken a screen grab just in case there is some dispute at a later stage. It says "Stop loss 10 seat", in the same place at it says Stop loss 200 seat for the major parties. It does not appear in the info but does when placing a bet.
No it really doesn't, I've just sold at 4.5 for a penny a seat as a proof of concept
Hillary is the USA's Angela Merkel, but unlike the wise burghers of Germany they've not put her in power yet.
I'm really quite looking forwards to her being elected. (Obviously I've bet against as she's far too short, but I do think she'll be a game-changing president in the way that Obama would have liked to have been.)
We'll certainly finish up with a PM that can't quite live in those circles. Cameron is better in that Merkel likes him, whereas Ed is an unknown.
The world will be run by women for a bit - Merkel, Clinton, and Lagarde. On paper that looks like a good thing. I'd certainly consider voting for that triumvirate rather than any UK party on may 7th.
If Hillary wins she will be taken over by events - just like all leaders. She would also be hamstrung by having to follow Democrat policies which will not help America. The question is how would she deal with the events?
This is really the important quality in any leader.
Comments
Whatever next, Lance Armstrong will be calling Blair a cheat and a fraud.
Edited extra bit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32275608
And what happens if the individuals dying aren't passing on their estate to their children (/don't have any)?
I think they lost because they weren't as good as George W at connecting with the public, and they were up against Obama (rather than Gore or Kerry).
A lot of people who prophesise doom for the Republicans forget that they won quite comfortably under George W in 2004.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/587329465409212416?lang=en-gb
Labour don't seem to understand this. They are happy to knock on the doors of grieving families demanding they clear out, sell up and pay up.
I'm really quite looking forwards to her being elected. (Obviously I've bet against as she's far too short, but I do think she'll be a game-changing president in the way that Obama would have liked to have been.)
We'll certainly finish up with a PM that can't quite live in those circles. Cameron is better in that Merkel likes him, whereas Ed is an unknown.
The world will be run by women for a bit - Merkel, Clinton, and Lagarde. On paper that looks like a good thing. I'd certainly consider voting for that triumvirate rather than any UK party on may 7th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=111&v=0uY7gLZDmn4
There's a difference between putting a 'positive' presentation on an idea, and distorting reality. The government does not own every person and every pound in the United Kingdom. People's earnings are not state property. Lower taxes are not state hand-outs.
I'm not arguing against you expressing yourself as you wish, and think it's right you do so [as right as it is for me to point out I think your use of language is not necessarily in accordance with reality or reason].
That sums up in one single post the Lefts attitude to your hard earned chattels. It's our money and we just give you handouts out of what's left .......
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Australia
On the other hand, like the weather, the royal family does spur endless gossip.
I'm no expert, but it strikes me that something the US and Rome had in common was a pretty broad willingness to incorporate outsiders into their system, America by immigration (even the slaves, who played a major part in forming the society, however painfully) and Rome by conquest. Both also had/have a pretty broad acceptance of religious practice.
Bush's narrow win in Ohio tipped the electoral college his way otherwise it was President Kerry.
The continuing demographic changes in swing states especially with latinos will further assist the Democrats. It is a significant weakness for the GOP that they have failed to address.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Some believe accepting outsiders was a weakness of Rome rather than a strength. When armies started to consist of barbarians it only accelerated the vicious cycle of regicide and civil war.
She's doomed. She's old, she's past it, and the email server is a scandal too far. It's probably a really good idea to see if there are any interesting second alternative candidates. (Bernie Saunders doesn't count.)
And if she did win, I think she'd lose to any sensible Republican. Really, 2016 is the Republicans to lose. Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to prefer ideological purity to power.
No doubt they will have to view lots of photos and TV footage to find the killer.
"hope you'll join"
Key phrases there for me. No complacency [or, at least, the avoidance of it and therefore recognition overt complacency is a danger], and a sense of engagement.
I take it back.
2015 will see a re-emergence of sovereign debt worries.
But they won't be in Dublin or Rome or Madrid. They'll be in Caracas and Quito. Ecuador ($100bn) and Venezuala ($400bn between the state and PVdSA) will both go bust in a $60 oil world. Petrobras might also default.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/17/3450186/hillary-clinton-open-to-trying-state-marijuana-legalization/
Presumably a Tory landslide is now inevitable and you may as well vote UKIP
2. The Presidential election will be framed by Hilary becoming the first woman President as in 08 it was Obama being the first black President.
3. In 08 Hilary was a great candidate but was beaten by an outstanding one in Obama. The Clinton machine remains very powerful.
4. The GOP need to connect to swing voters by nominating someone who appears a member of the human race but that candidate has to tack right to secure the nomination.
5. Swing state demographics will continue to favour the Democrats.
"The only significant trend the data has picked up since last week is a very slight softening of SNP support in constituencies in Scotland. A striking 3/5 of the seats in the SNP column are classified as 'too close to call'. Since April 4th we have moved 3 constituencies from 'leaning SNP' to 'too close to call', 4 constituencies from 'likely SNP' to 'leaning SNP' and a further 7 from 'SNP' to 'likely SNP'. However, the trend has so far only reduced their total by one seat - Dunfermline and West Fife - in which Labour is now seen as narrowly ahead."
Despite the above, current projections give the SNP 55 seats.
They were asking about taxes that's why.
I'm pretty sure it's that firm which sponsors Maldonado's presence in F1. Could indicate his departure once the current deal ends [or prior to that].
My pension would have been much higher if I had stayed as i was protected on the 1995 scheme.
So afraid you are talking boll*** if you think i went for financial gain
Not very good at this tax/benefit thing are you?
Right, must dash. Must make supper before my wife calls me to Poldark.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/01/3617867/jeb-bush-admits-smoked-marijuana-wants-keep-pot-illegal/
Bit of a quiet time in the markets right now though with endless chopping back and forth - I'm out of things but not ruling out a rally on the Dow to around the 18,500 area. 18,600 area is key resistance, and I'd love a buying opportunity around the 16,300-16,400 area in early June - not sure right now if I'll get my wish though!
TSE Thanks for uploading the video
Will she always be the oldest person in her campaign videos?
Doing the Tv footage now. How predictable.
Gives me a warm feeling that some think they are funding my life of leisure. When in fact all i did was take my pension i was contractually entitled to propped up by a crap annuity.
I am happy to pay more tax though as long as the rich pay even more
You don't even know I'm not a PB tory but anyone that disagrees with you is to you is a Tory.
It could also be someone who just thinks your party is just a bunch of lunatics having seen the country destroyed by Labour three times in my lifetime.
As most on here know I am ABL.
Don't know if anyone else had noticed this but UKIP seats at SPIN has a stop-loss of 10. Accordingly I have sold 4.5 - feels high, I assumed this was because there is so much upside in the potential of a result, but it would appear not.
Clinton wins.
Fwiw I think the correct spread price is about 5 1/4.
Most, albeit not all, pass on their estate to their children
Anyone my age kept their original pension rights so I believe i may beat you on the specialized subject of BJO's pension.
Although quite amusing you are obsessed. Hey Ho 25 days to EICIPM
So if it is not levied on buying your home (is it? or if so what rate?) then that makes a bit of a difference on later valuing its sale (ie nthat of your home) as a capital gain.
I am not saying the idea is good or bad, but we need to consider taxation in the round.
A fair point. But it cuts both ways. If she doesn't seem unduly drained by the campaign (exhilarated rather than exhausted) it could help her.
This is really the important quality in any leader.
Looking very good despite one or two wayward shots.
Wish I had followed it.