Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile for the other contenders the battle continues…

2»

Comments

  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015
    MTimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?
    I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.
    His message is a largely populist anti immigrant one, that would not go down well in the Democratic primaries, their anti Wall Street populism is provided by Sanders
    Agreed that there'd be a strong reaction against him, just as there is in the GOP. His net negatives with the Latino electorate is -51 !!! But he'd probably get votes in the majority white states in the North and Midwest, so I'd think 15-25% would be what he'd be pulling.
    Trump has 52% approval among Republicans and 34% among Democrats, so triangulation suggests he'd get about two thirds of what he'd get on the GOP side. That's just above 20%, so your estimate, relative to 35% or so now.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.

    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    Howard won 2% more than Ed and gained seats. Had IDS been storming ahead in the polls and gaining by elections he would not have been ousted as leader
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM
    We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.

    BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,051
    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    There have been worse VP nominees.
    But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.
    As someone of libertarian tendencies (fiscal and foreign policy conservative, social liberal), I'd vote any Dem, even Sanders, over Trump if he were the GOP candidate. He would be extraordinarily dangerous for the world. I know a number of Republicans who think the same way.
    Hopefully Michael Bloomberg would run 3rd party if Trump v Sanders were the choice and he would probably win, Bloomberg would be better than Hillary and Jeb Bush in my opinion anyway so ironically it could produce the best candidate by default as Bloomberg would never win otherwise
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?
    I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.
    I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.
    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,051
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.

    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM
    Weren't we told ad nauseam on here that leadership ratings didn't matter Re: Milliband? I thought we were.
    Obviously they did as they were a far better predictor of the election result than the party polls which were tied
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,051

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.

    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM
    We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.

    BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
    Michael Foot and William Hague won local elections, fat lot of good it did them at the general!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,051

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    LOL, OGH really has it in for Burnham doesn't he.

    From my conversations with Mike, I get the impression Mike rates Burnham as a crapper version of Gordon Brown but without the charm or people skills.
    Mind you Mike was urging Labour to pick Ed rather than David in 2010
    I thought from memory he was suggesting there was value in backing Ed (as there was) rather than supporting Ed personally.

    Furthermore David was crap as was Ed. No reason whatsoever to believe David wouldn't have done equally as dreadfully as his brother he couldn't even beat himself.

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    LOL, OGH really has it in for Burnham doesn't he.

    From my conversations with Mike, I get the impression Mike rates Burnham as a crapper version of Gordon Brown but without the charm or people skills.
    Mind you Mike was urging Labour to pick Ed rather than David in 2010
    I thought from memory he was suggesting there was value in backing Ed (as there was) rather than supporting Ed personally.

    Furthermore David was crap as was Ed. No reason whatsoever to believe David wouldn't have done equally as dreadfully as his brother he couldn't even beat himself.
    He said he thought Ed was a better pick for Labour and all the polling evidence was that David Miliband was the public' s preference for Labour leader at the time
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Depressinggering.

    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM
    We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.

    BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
    Michael Foot and William Hague won local elections, fat lot of good it did them at the general!

    HYUFD Tories merely replaced one loser, IDS, with another, Howard :)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,428
    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    viewcode said:

    It's not often that you get to see an organisation disintegrating in real time in front of you in such detail and under such a spotlight.

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
    I remember how much money I won on her winning that. I remember seeing info on that chartered/private flight from Anchorage to Minnesota and piling in on the money... happy times.
    It seems like only yesterday, but lord, it's seven years ago now...
    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!
    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Disraeli said:

    o/t Feeling a bit down in the dumps today, but this cheers me up.
    https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/636640403782037506

    That's right, they're all learning English so they can come over and steal your jobs. And also so they can read/write ISIS propaganda
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?
    I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.
    I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.
    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...
    I heard a comment that Trump is like Barbasol - thick and rich.

    It's a tad unfair - he did graduate from the Wharton school.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,572
    MTimT said:


    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...

    Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,428
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited August 2015
    Feeling a tad smug about my home town.......

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/24/honest-tea-atlanta-cities/32260581/

    Obviously this is not a scientifically rigorous experiment such as I would do with Heidi
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,428

    MTimT said:


    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...

    Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...
    How do you think the odds will change for him between now and the result?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,840

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections

    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    Howard won 2% more than Ed and gained seats. Had IDS been storming ahead in the polls and gaining by elections he would not have been ousted as leader
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM
    We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.

    BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
    Leadership ratings rarely change much once the country's come to a settled opinion, which it had - rightly - about IDS by 2003. He wasn't seen as PM material; Howard was, though other ractors held him back, as it did the Tories in general.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited August 2015
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
    Star of One, Two, Three, a movie with Atlanta in the plot.....
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited August 2015
    New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).

    Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:

    - Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
    - Migration stats
    - New Peers

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    As if the VA shooting of TV folks during a live interview wasn't enough, a policeman is among 3 people shot in Sunset LA. The shooter is holed up in a convenience store.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    MikeL said:

    New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).

    Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:

    - Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
    - Migration stats
    - New Peers

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers

    A 100,000 people died last year without any pre existing condition. Fit and healthy people die as well as sick people. Been returned to work has nothing to do with it.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,840

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    There have been worse VP nominees.
    But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.
    Have there? With the exception of Curtis LeMay (who ran on a third party ticket so doesn't really count), I can't think of any.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    There have been worse VP nominees.
    But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.
    Have there? With the exception of Curtis LeMay (who ran on a third party ticket so doesn't really count), I can't think of any.
    Colonel Sanders was first choice, before LeMay...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,051

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Depressinggering.

    If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
    I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper win

    The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
    What do you mean fails to perform??

    IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
    may well also vote with their hearts for Corbyn
    But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
    My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!
    Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seats
    Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for Labour :)
    True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!
    It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PM


    BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.

    HYUFD Tories merely replaced one loser, IDS, with another, Howard :)
    Sunil As David H states Howard was seen as a more credible leader than IDS even if voters were not yet ready for the Tories again in 2005, night
  • MikeL said:

    New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).

    Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:

    - Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
    - Migration stats
    - New Peers

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/628249873217929218
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited August 2015
    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    One such candidate was David Laws.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    RobD said:

    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    One such candidate was David Laws.
    Somewhat bizarre that until 4 months ago he was a Minister attending Cabinet meetings (though not an official member).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    Tim_B said:

    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?
    Thankfully they've installed a Stannah stairlift for the older of our most noble peers. :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    MikeL said:

    RobD said:

    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    One such candidate was David Laws.
    Somewhat bizarre that until 4 months ago he was a Minister attending Cabinet meetings (though not an official member).
    A pity Danny Alexander didn't want one. Wonder if he has found a position elsewhere
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,428
    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
    Star of One, Two, Three, a movie with Atlanta in the plot.....
    I did not know that, thank you
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    Potential new Peers per FT:

    Former MPs:
    Hague
    George Young
    Willetts
    Darling
    Hain
    Blunkett
    Beith
    Campbell
    Bruce

    Other Conservatives:
    Kate Fall
    Stephen Gilbert
    Simone Finn
    Philippa Stroud
    James O'Shaughnessy
    Michelle Mone
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    MikeL said:

    Potential new Peers per FT:

    Former MPs:
    Hague
    George Young
    Willetts
    Darling
    Hain
    Blunkett
    Beith
    Campbell
    Bruce

    Other Conservatives:
    Kate Fall
    Stephen Gilbert
    Simone Finn
    Philippa Stroud
    James O'Shaughnessy
    Michelle Mone

    That's Lord Captain Darling to you!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    viewcode said:

    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
    Star of One, Two, Three, a movie with Atlanta in the plot.....
    I did not know that, thank you
    It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).

    One of my favorite movies.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    RobD said:

    Tim_B said:

    MikeL said:

    Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.

    Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html

    Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?
    Thankfully they've installed a Stannah stairlift for the older of our most noble peers. :p
    I always thought the Lords was a step up :p
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
    Star of One, Two, Three, a movie with Atlanta in the plot.....
    I did not know that, thank you
    It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).

    One of my favorite movies.


    Phyllis MacNamara: Why can't you get yourself a nice permanent job with the home office in Atlanta?

    C.R. MacNamara: Atlanta? You can't be serious! That's Siberia with mint juleps!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Nick

    MTimT said:


    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...

    Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...
    NIck, I've argued from pretty much the start that I don't think Bush will get it because, if he were going to do so, he would have pulled clear from the pack already. That said, he has the Establishment and deep donor pockets, so he is there for the long haul. I just don't see him exciting any base, so I think he'll be in the mix, but it won't be him. But, at the moment, none of the viable candidates is getting the job done. That said, still think it will be one of Rubio, Walker, Bush and Kasich. My dream ticket is Kasich/Rubio, but I would not put much more than a small wager on that.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Disraeli said:

    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    Tim_B said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!

    Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...

    Horst Buchholz!
    Star of One, Two, Three, a movie with Atlanta in the plot.....
    I did not know that, thank you
    It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).

    One of my favorite movies.


    Phyllis MacNamara: Why can't you get yourself a nice permanent job with the home office in Atlanta?

    C.R. MacNamara: Atlanta? You can't be serious! That's Siberia with mint juleps!
    I think it has the snappiest dialog of any Wilder movie.


    Phyllis MacNamara: Atlanta!
    C.R. MacNamara: Yeah, I'm the new vice president in charge of bottle caps. They're kicking me upstairs.
    Phyllis MacNamara: That's something I've always wanted to do myself.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Tim_B said:

    MTimT said:

    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.

    The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.
    So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?
    I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.
    I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.
    Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...
    I heard a comment that Trump is like Barbasol - thick and rich.

    It's a tad unfair - he did graduate from the Wharton school.
    In surgery today, Lisa was talking to a surgeon whose father has done business with Trump. Says Trump is super smart (he does have a Wharton MBA) and not to be fooled by his buffoonery. He is pro-Trump for the non-poliitician truth-speaker reason. But even so, he does not see him as a viable presidential candidate.

    That makes me wonder how many of Trump's supporters in the polls at the moment fall into that category - people very pleased to see Trump cutting through the crap and making waves, supportive of his non-PC brashness, but not really seeing him as POTUS.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    MTimT said:

    Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.

    Safe travels!
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.

    Have a good trip!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Anyone know why MTimT is going to Pakistan? Business?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,989
    MTimT said:

    Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.

    I guess you won't have as much fun these days as I used to.... No early morning solitary walks in the foothills of the Himalayas, I'm thinking.
  • RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.
    Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931 :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,170
    edited August 2015
    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.
    Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931 :)
    As long as it has floating podiums from which the senators address the chamber, I'm all for it!
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.
    Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931 :)
    As long as it has floating podiums from which the senators address the chamber, I'm all for it!
    Senator Amidala from Naboo Namibia :lol:
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    RodCrosby said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
    Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited August 2015
    RobD said:

    RodCrosby said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
    Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.
    Janner, Hanningfield, Lord Lucan et al are certainly a diverse range of 'talents'...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    RodCrosby said:

    RobD said:

    RodCrosby said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
    Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.
    Janner, Hanningfield, Lord Lucan et all are certainly a diverse range of 'talents'...
    Who, thanks to the massive number of peers, constitute a tiny fraction of the chamber. Rotten apples....
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,962
    RodCrosby said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
    RodCrosby said:

    AndyJS said:

    I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.

    Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?

    Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber

    Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
    The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...
    This "size of the Lords" thing is a bit of a straw man imo.

    They aren't paid for being members, but for attending.

    There is access to a wide range of expertise.

    The cost is about a quarter of the Commons.

    It is effective in holding the Government to account on the non-fashionable aspects, especially in the details.

    It prevents *many* pratfalls of the kind that are routine in unicameral Assmblies See Holyrood, and the Senedd.

    Some reform needed - yes, but let's have a real debate.
Sign In or Register to comment.