We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Osborne could always cut spending, rather than merely alluding to it.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
That means spending growth has been cut, but spending is still growing.
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
Hi HL and thanks for your kind words, although in all honesty I've never really been away, but perhaps I'm not as active on PB.com as I once was. I certainly never disappeared as inexplicably and rather sadly appears to be the case with my near namesake.
I take your point as regards laying Hillary early against her being the Democratic nominee for POTUS. My reticence stems from her having been a nailed on certainty for so long that it seems almost inconceivable that she could lose out this far down the line - I suppose I'm really stating the obvious is suggesting that it's better to have a, say 5/2 winner than a 5/1 loser. BUT .... it's certainly true to say that if the odds turn against her, they could well do so very quickly indeed as the betting market goes into a frenzy. Maybe the answer is to drip feed your stake money, so as not to lose out, whilst at the same time not risking too much too early. Good luck whatever you decide.
PS - Well remembered re: The White Horse on Putney High Street, although in all honesty I prefer The Green Man on Putney Heath and The Hare and Hounds in East Sheen, both also Youngs pubs, but with the advantage of having gardens at the rear - smashing for lazy beer-swilling afternoons during the summer months!
Thanks for that, Mr. Putney. Since my retirement I am strictly restricted to cash betting, which rather limits my abilities to play the markets, but your advice seems sound for those who can dodge and weave a little more.
As for the pubs, The Green Man was a part of my childhood (a walk across the common and then a stop at there on the way home as it has a garden where I could be left with a packet of crisps and a lemonade whilst my parents indulged inside - see also The Telegraph PH) and in my teens was also a nice place to take young ladies (a few drinks and then a walk on the common). The Hare and Hounds I have been in once, when doing the old Young's circuit. Do you remember that? Get your card signed by the landlord of every Young's pub and the Brewery gave you a Young'' tie and a firkin of either ordinary or special.
coz vicars are all left wing. can't stand the sanctomy
It's because of a lack of faith in what they are selling. The Church of England Vicar round the corner from me seems to be selling vague ecumenical niceness, without too any actual god bothering. Empty church.
The Catholic lot are selling middle of the road Catholicism (We are Catholics, if you like that, come on in. If you don't, well.... don't). Packed to standing room only for the middle Sunday services - plenty turn up for the early morning Mass, when I'm getting the bread from the bakery across the road...
Oh, and I'm an atheist.
The problem the CoE suffers from is that it's staffed with Christian socialists but was founded as an independent conservative patriotic national church.
They can never quite accept or get over that. The gap between the congregation and vicars has always been huge.
The more doctrinaire and international Catholic Church that's independent of any state - and, indeed, has its own - doesn't have the same problem.
The biggest growth in the Anglican Church is in Africa which takes a much more traditional line on things. On present trends they will soon restore a conservative majority
"traditional"
"conservative"
Let's try bigoted and homophobic as more accurate descriptors.
What's quite interesting in Diversity Trumps is that being a Christian has a negative value. I think it is because Christianity is seen as a "White European" religion. So when you raise, for example, severe repression against Christians in various countries, the response from the professionally outraged is often "meh".
This also means that they don't get "cool native religion" bonus points that usually mean that savage homophobia gets overlooked.
F1: just seen Ladbrokes have some McLaren specials. They're almost entirely dreadful. The 4 on Alonso to leave before the end of the season is the only one that would give me pause for thought, but I'm not backing it.
Edited extra bit: that bet is effectively on whether the McLaren is utter rubbish again. Leaving aside aerodynamic niceties, it's about progress with the Honda engine, specifically hooking up the MGU-H and MGU-K units properly.
If that's done, he'll almost certainly stay. If it's not, and the car is much as it was last year, he'll go.
Supposedly its a simple task to hook up those units correctly. The problem was that the rules didn't allow changes around there to be done during the season.
I really wouldn't take that Alonso bet until I saw some testing...
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Osborne could always cut spending, rather than merely alluding to it.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
That means spending growth has been cut, but spending is still growing.
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
Also, the value of money declines over time. So, it needs to reflect that.
But after calmly reminding them of their duty of care, he claimed he 'saw red' when one 'smirked' at him after he recalled how his sister died prematurely from brain cancer after doctors allegedly ignored her symptoms.
In an extraordinary outburst captured on camera, he bellowed: 'I think you should be disgusted with yourselves, you swore a Hippocratic Oath to protect people's lives - not to spit your dummy out and come out here'.
In the tense footage, Mr Minister can be heard bellowing at two male junior doctors: 'I've got no patience for you.'
He added that doctors were being egged on by 'Corbyn's cronies' and bullied by the trade unions who were bringing back ;dark days of the Seventies.'
coz vicars are all left wing. can't stand the sanctomy
It's because of a lack of faith in what they are selling. The Church of England Vicar round the corner from me seems to be selling vague ecumenical niceness, without too any actual god bothering. Empty church.
The Catholic lot are selling middle of the road Catholicism (We are Catholics, if you like that, come on in. If you don't, well.... don't). Packed to standing room only for the middle Sunday services - plenty turn up for the early morning Mass, when I'm getting the bread from the bakery across the road...
Oh, and I'm an atheist.
The problem the CoE suffers from is that it's staffed with Christian socialists but was founded as an independent conservative patriotic national church.
They can never quite accept or get over that. The gap between the congregation and vicars has always been huge.
The more doctrinaire and international Catholic Church that's independent of any state - and, indeed, has its own - doesn't have the same problem.
The biggest growth in the Anglican Church is in Africa which takes a much more traditional line on things. On present trends they will soon restore a conservative majority
"traditional"
"conservative"
Let's try bigoted and homophobic as more accurate descriptors.
What's quite interesting in Diversity Trumps is that being a Christian has a negative value. I think it is because Christianity is seen as a "White European" religion. So when you raise, for example, severe repression against Christians in various countries, the response from the professionally outraged is often "meh".
This also means that they don't get "cool native religion" bonus points that usually mean that savage homophobia gets overlooked.
I certainly don't think it is because of it being seen as a White European religion. I think it is because it is in itself intolerant - and much of that intolerance now comes from the non white non European sections of Christianity.
I think the general protestant movement in the UK and Europe is now increasingly seen to be a tolerant sect held back by its non European branches and its own vocal European minorities.
On topic: Today's Iowa PPP, although has Trump in the lead is actually a bad one for him. Trump's main attack on Cruz doesn't work, only 3% of Cruz voters say they will be less likely to vote Cruz if he was canadian, and most Cruz voters would go to Rubio rather than Trump as a second choice. Looking at the tables it will be hard for Trump to get more than a third of the vote regardless what happens to Cruz.
However the same pollster has equally bad news for Hillary, although they got her ahead by 6, the gap with Sanders closed by 12, mirroring other polls that give it a close race now with Sanders having the momentum.
Tomorrow is the DMR poll, my expectations, based on evangelical voters, is that Trump will cut Cruz's lead from 10 to 7 points in that poll, also I think Sanders will be either in the lead or very close to Hillary.
Problem is, on Thursday there is yet another GOP debate, and the last GOP debate isn't until 4 days before Iowa, so most of these polls are redundant, if one wants to bet on Iowa one has to wait until after the last debate.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Osborne could always cut spending, rather than merely alluding to it.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
That means spending growth has been cut, but spending is still growing.
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
Also, the value of money declines over time. So, it needs to reflect that.
Indeed real figures should be used though given inflation has been negligible I suspect there has been some modest real terms growth in spending.
But yes in real terms once you exclude interest and protected departments spending has been cut in the rest. In some quite significantly.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
The problem the CoE suffers is that we don't live in the dark ages and there's more to life than just religion.
Sadly though some seem to want to bring the dark ages back and re-introduce religion, but it won't be the CoE that benefits.
Any debate on the future of the C of E must ultimately lead to the use of the word antidisestablishmentarianism.
Well any debate on gay marriage must, given that the quadruple lock, and the differences between canon and statute law, is arguably the most misunderstood piece of legislation in modern Britain.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Raiding pensions will have a double effect, one is that people will need to increase contributions thereby locking more cash into long term storage where it isn't very useful and has a low multiplier. The other is more pernicious and harder to pin down, but it will be a behavioural change from fund managers who will have to chase higher risk investments to get the kind of returns required to make up for the black holes created in schemes and funds and this will lead to more asset and stock bubbles and hit financial and economic stability in the long term. The same happened when Brown eliminated the pensions dividend credit. Funds had to increase their risk profile and it created false booms and bubbles.
This is a very Brownian move by Osborne, politically and fiscally. It isn't a good look.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
In fact, the rate of spending increase is being reduced but, other than that, fair enough.
I think the more interesting figures would be from the other side of the balance sheet - how much income is the Government getting in from tax receipts, asset sales and the like. The problem with spending isn't the spending but rather the gap between spending and income.
If your two figures start equal, increase your spending by 10% and your income by 20% and you're doing fine. It's doing the other way round that causes problems.
Gordon Brown's problems began when the income side collapsed as economic activity slowed in 2008-09.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Osborne could always cut spending, rather than merely alluding to it.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
That means spending growth has been cut, but spending is still growing.
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
Also, the value of money declines over time. So, it needs to reflect that.
Indeed real figures should be used though given inflation has been negligible I suspect there has been some modest real terms growth in spending.
But yes in real terms once you exclude interest and protected departments spending has been cut in the rest. In some quite significantly.
Even 1.25% inflation over a seven year period starts to add up... But yes, I agree with everything you say :-)
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Raiding pensions will have a double effect, one is that people will need to increase contributions thereby locking more cash into long term storage where it isn't very useful and has a low multiplier. The other is more pernicious and harder to pin down, but it will be a behavioural change from fund managers who will have to chase higher risk investments to get the kind of returns required to make up for the black holes created in schemes and funds and this will lead to more asset and stock bubbles and hit financial and economic stability in the long term. The same happened when Brown eliminated the pensions dividend credit. Funds had to increase their risk profile and it created false booms and bubbles.
This is a very Brownian move by Osborne, politically and fiscally. It isn't a good look.
I tend to agree with that. Although, as an investment manager, I may be biased.
Apparently the reshuffle is continuing at junior ranks. Nick Thomas-Symonds has been moved from pensions to employment. His role has been filled by Angela Rayner.
Apparently the reshuffle is continuing at junior ranks. Nick Thomas-Symonds has been moved from pensions to employment. His role has been filled by Angela Rayner.
The Never-Ending SSSSSSSSttttttorrrr........reshuffle.
coz vicars are all left wing. can't stand the sanctomy
It's because of a lack of faith in what they are selling. The Church of England Vicar round the corner from me seems to be selling vague ecumenical niceness, without too any actual god bothering. Empty church.
The Catholic lot are selling middle of the road Catholicism (We are Catholics, if you like that, come on in. If you don't, well.... don't). Packed to standing room only for the middle Sunday services - plenty turn up for the early morning Mass, when I'm getting the bread from the bakery across the road...
Oh, and I'm an atheist.
The problem the CoE suffers from is that it's staffed with Christian socialists but was founded as an independent conservative patriotic national church.
They can never quite accept or get over that. The gap between the congregation and vicars has always been huge.
The more doctrinaire and international Catholic Church that's independent of any state - and, indeed, has its own - doesn't have the same problem.
That is the fundamental problem for the C of E. The sort of people who attend its services, or who would like to, tend to be large and small c conservatives. But, they're alienated by a left-wing leadership. The last straw, which caused me to leave, was when the Church issued an apology for the slave trade. I think it's a journey that many people have made. The Protestant sects that tend to best tend to be the conservative ones.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
In fact, the rate of spending increase is being reduced but, other than that, fair enough.
I think the more interesting figures would be from the other side of the balance sheet - how much income is the Government getting in from tax receipts, asset sales and the like. The problem with spending isn't the spending but rather the gap between spending and income.
If your two figures start equal, increase your spending by 10% and your income by 20% and you're doing fine. It's doing the other way round that causes problems.
Gordon Brown's problems began when the income side collapsed as economic activity slowed in 2008-09.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
In fact, the rate of spending increase is being reduced but, other than that, fair enough.
I think the more interesting figures would be from the other side of the balance sheet - how much income is the Government getting in from tax receipts, asset sales and the like. The problem with spending isn't the spending but rather the gap between spending and income.
If your two figures start equal, increase your spending by 10% and your income by 20% and you're doing fine. It's doing the other way round that causes problems.
Gordon Brown's problems began when the income side collapsed as economic activity slowed in 2008-09.
@rcs1000 I'm looking at the polls for Nevada and S.Carolina for the DNC race, Sanders doesn't have a chance in the south because african-americans hate him.
In Nevada though he's got a chance alright, last 3 polls had Hillary at 50% (old polls though), with Sanders at a third or just above and the rest undecided, pretty much same as Iowa before Christmas.
Basically Sanders odds are in reverse proportion to the share of african-americans, there are many in S.Carolina, but very few in Iowa, N.H and Nevada.
And schedule matters, in the DNC race Nevada comes before S.Carolina:
So Sanders may end up winning all 3 early states., you now what that means? It means opportunity for trading bets, Sanders odds are very low at the moment but the polls and potential victories and defeats will change them like a trampoline.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
There has to be still potential for an almighty mess of an election, with two brokered conventions and one or perhaps two third party candidates.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
@rcs1000 I'm looking at the polls for Nevada and S.Carolina for the DNC race, Sanders doesn't have a chance in the south because african-americans hate him.
In Nevada though he's got a chance alright, last 3 polls had Hillary at 50% (old polls though), with Sanders at a third or just above and the rest undecided, pretty much same as Iowa before Christmas.
Basically Sanders odds are in reverse proportion to the share of african-americans, there are many in S.Carolina, but very few in Iowa, N.H and Nevada.
And schedule matters, in the DNC race Nevada comes before S.Carolina:
So Sanders may end up winning all 3 early states., you now what that means? It means opportunity for trading bets, Sanders odds are very low at the moment but the polls and potential victories and defeats will change them like a trampoline.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
There has to be still potential for an almighty mess of an election, with two brokered conventions and one or perhaps two third party candidates.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
Some states don't allow an independent run if you've contested party primaries (like Ohio), but most states have a 60 day limit before the election to pay fees and present the required number of signatures. http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml
Possibly the most insightful comment Dave made before he became PM was the one that started "Too many tweets..."
A lot of local councillors are only capable of animal functions.
I have a presentation I give to schools and parents about Internet security and social media. I really feel like sending it to CCHQ - maybe with a couple of added slides about new media journalism and how the likes of Guido operate.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
There has to be still potential for an almighty mess of an election, with two brokered conventions and one or perhaps two third party candidates.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
Some states don't allow an independent run if you've contested party primaries (like Ohio), but most states have a 60 day limit before the election to pay fees and present the required number of signatures. http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml
PB is great for questions like that, someone always comes up trumps (sic) with the answer!
So the currently uninvolved Bloomberg could decide quite late to run, but Trump would need to withdraw early from the primaries if he wanted to stand alone.
@rcs1000 I'm looking at the polls for Nevada and S.Carolina for the DNC race, Sanders doesn't have a chance in the south because african-americans hate him.
In Nevada though he's got a chance alright, last 3 polls had Hillary at 50% (old polls though), with Sanders at a third or just above and the rest undecided, pretty much same as Iowa before Christmas.
Basically Sanders odds are in reverse proportion to the share of african-americans, there are many in S.Carolina, but very few in Iowa, N.H and Nevada.
And schedule matters, in the DNC race Nevada comes before S.Carolina:
So Sanders may end up winning all 3 early states., you now what that means? It means opportunity for trading bets, Sanders odds are very low at the moment but the polls and potential victories and defeats will change them like a trampoline.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
While we are talking unlikely scenarios, Mr Bloomberg could run as an emergency Democrat.
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
There has to be still potential for an almighty mess of an election, with two brokered conventions and one or perhaps two third party candidates.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
Some states don't allow an independent run if you've contested party primaries (like Ohio), but most states have a 60 day limit before the election to pay fees and present the required number of signatures. http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
Not quite. If Hillary withdraws, her name will still be on the ballot so people could vote for her with the intention of sending what are effectively unpledged (but Hillary-friendly) delegates to Philadelphia. It's messy, would take some explaining, and is more than a bit West Wing but it would be workable in extremis.
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
How ironic that when people are imagining a brokered convention they immediately think about Trump and the RNC, but it may end up with Trump having an easy ride and the democrats having a brokered convention instead.
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
There has to be still potential for an almighty mess of an election, with two brokered conventions and one or perhaps two third party candidates.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
Some states don't allow an independent run if you've contested party primaries (like Ohio), but most states have a 60 day limit before the election to pay fees and present the required number of signatures. http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml
1. Someone has emails *from* her or forwarded to them that should clearly be classified or show evidence of something illegal.
or
2. Someone comes forward from the time of Bill's impeachment with evidence that she did something she shouldn't have done, like paid someone to go away.
As an IT guy the whole email thing is still completely implausible - there's no way there's not backups somewhere.
It would be really easy for the republicans to campaign with a poster of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright from House of Cards, with the Clintons' heads photoshopped on. That could be poisonous to Hilary.
It's #1.
The FBI has found something like 1500 emails with classified material in them, some of it Top Secret. That is ongoing.
The investigation has now expanded into 'public corruption' laws. The FBI are investigating the issuance of contracts by State at her time there, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments plus speaking fees paid to Bill at that time.
The reason there are no backups is that the Clintons asked for them to be destroyed.
Interesting. I guess it would be a complete co-incidence if Bill Clinton got very well paid for a speech in a country that then went on to benefit from State Aid, for example...
Can you comment on how the US law would work if a backup tape somehow found its way into the Fox News newsroom. Maybe a bag with a million dollars in cash 'disappeared' from Fox at around the same time. Would they be allowed to do anything with it, or would men in dark glasses start arresting executives until they gave up their source? How free is the US press in a post-Snowden world?
If a backup tape did arrive at Fox, once they realized what it was they would immediately call the Feds - it contains much classified material, unauthorized possession of which is a criminal offense.
Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.
The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.
If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
@rcs1000 I'm looking at the polls for Nevada and S.Carolina for the DNC race, Sanders doesn't have a chance in the south because african-americans hate him.
In Nevada though he's got a chance alright, last 3 polls had Hillary at 50% (old polls though), with Sanders at a third or just above and the rest undecided, pretty much same as Iowa before Christmas.
Basically Sanders odds are in reverse proportion to the share of african-americans, there are many in S.Carolina, but very few in Iowa, N.H and Nevada.
And schedule matters, in the DNC race Nevada comes before S.Carolina:
So Sanders may end up winning all 3 early states., you now what that means? It means opportunity for trading bets, Sanders odds are very low at the moment but the polls and potential victories and defeats will change them like a trampoline.
Why is he unpopular with African Americans?
Sanders is a US Senator for Vermont, which has only a one per cent black population, so he has never had to work with African-American organisations or compromise on issues that are them like gun control, on which he is moderate to conservative. Instead his base was like Burlington, where he was mayor: small-town and university voters. So unlike Clinton who was senator for the diverse state of New York and then a national executive, he never did that outreach to the whole Democratic base. (The answer is illustrative of why senators so rarely win primaries.)
@Speedy: Sanders can't - realistically - win Nevada or South Carolina. But if she fails in both Iowa and New Hampshire, it just emphasises how weak she is as a candidate.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
It's too late, the filing deadlines have pasted for the majority of states. No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap. If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
While we are talking unlikely scenarios, Mr Bloomberg could run as an emergency Democrat.
Hello President Trump. You think that after the democrats vote for an anti-wall street anti-banker socialist for the nomination that they are going to flock to Bloomberg who is a wall street guy? He may split the vote and allow Trump to win.
It may be a repeat of the Florida 2010 senate race.
coz vicars are all left wing. can't stand the sanctomy
It's because of a lack of faith in what they are selling. The Church of England Vicar round the corner from me seems to be selling vague ecumenical niceness, without too any actual god bothering. Empty church.
The Catholic lot are selling middle of the road Catholicism (We are Catholics, if you like that, come on in. If you don't, well.... don't). Packed to standing room only for the middle Sunday services - plenty turn up for the early morning Mass, when I'm getting the bread from the bakery across the road...
Oh, and I'm an atheist.
The problem the CoE suffers from is that it's staffed with Christian socialists but was founded as an independent conservative patriotic national church.
They can never quite accept or get over that. The gap between the congregation and vicars has always been huge.
The more doctrinaire and international Catholic Church that's independent of any state - and, indeed, has its own - doesn't have the same problem.
That is the fundamental problem for the C of E. The sort of people who attend its services, or who would like to, tend to be large and small c conservatives. But, they're alienated by a left-wing leadership. The last straw, which caused me to leave, was when the Church issued an apology for the slave trade. I think it's a journey that many people have made. The Protestant sects that tend to best tend to be the conservative ones.
I sympathise.
Another way of looking at it: when was the last time a left-wing vicar convinced his/her congregation of anything relating to politics?
I live in an old English village where church attendance is still good, mainly of course with very elderly well-dressed gentlemen and women, and UKIP+Conservative routinely get 85-90% of the vote.
My parents usually chuckle to themselves and laugh about yet another 'left wing' sermon whenever they go, and my father hasn't liked a single Archbishop of Canterbury for as long as I've been alive, but it doesn't stop them.
1. Someone has emails *from* her or forwarded to them that should clearly be classified or show evidence of something illegal.
or
2. Someone comes forward from the time of Bill's impeachment with evidence that she did something she shouldn't have done, like paid someone to go away.
As an IT guy the whole email thing is still completely implausible - there's no way there's not backups somewhere.
It would be really easy for the republicans to campaign with a poster of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright from House of Cards, with the Clintons' heads photoshopped on. That could be poisonous to Hilary.
It's #1.
The FBI has found something like 1500 emails with classified material in them, some of it Top Secret. That is ongoing.
The investigation has now expanded into 'public corruption' laws. The FBI are investigating the issuance of contracts by State at her time there, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments plus speaking fees paid to Bill at that time.
The reason there are no backups is that the Clintons asked for them to be destroyed.
Interesting. I guess it would be a complete co-incidence if Bill Clinton got very well paid for a speech in a country that then went on to benefit from State Aid, for example...
Can you comment on how the US law would work if a backup tape somehow found its way into the Fox News newsroom. Maybe a bag with a million dollars in cash 'disappeared' from Fox at around the same time. Would they be allowed to do anything with it, or would men in dark glasses start arresting executives until they gave up their source? How free is the US press in a post-Snowden world?
If a backup tape did arrive at Fox, once they realized what it was they would immediately call the Feds - it contains much classified material, unauthorized possession of which is a criminal offense.
Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.
The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.
If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Raiding pensions will have a double effect, one is that people will need to increase contributions thereby locking more cash into long term storage where it isn't very useful and has a low multiplier. The other is more pernicious and harder to pin down, but it will be a behavioural change from fund managers who will have to chase higher risk investments to get the kind of returns required to make up for the black holes created in schemes and funds and this will lead to more asset and stock bubbles and hit financial and economic stability in the long term. The same happened when Brown eliminated the pensions dividend credit. Funds had to increase their risk profile and it created false booms and bubbles.
This is a very Brownian move by Osborne, politically and fiscally. It isn't a good look.
This tells you everything you need to know about Osborne:
"A more radical approach would be that suggested by Michael Johnson, a former investment banker who has written extensively on the matter for the Centre for Policy Studies think tank. Under his proposal, all reliefs would be abolished, but an “incentive” to save amounting to 50p in the pound – double the present one for basic rate taxpayers – would be offered up to a limit of £8,000 a year. This too would result in very considerable savings. It would also be significantly redistributional, a political positioning that Osborne seems to relish, perhaps oddly for a Conservative."
To him, politics is a game to be measured in seat tallies and opinion poll leads and the Conservative Party is merely a vehicle to allow him to do it.
We heard is here first from the esteemed Mr Meeks, but another one for all the Osborne worshippers out there.
Tax increases ahead for the Middle classes!
Despite all the whining Cameroon deniers on here, I reassert my point. Osborne is in trouble. Financial and political. And he richly deserves it
Osborne could always cut spending, rather than merely alluding to it.
Spending is being cut. Spending for 2016 is 760bn Spending in 2010 was 673bn 6 years before that in 2004 it was 455bn So in the last 6 years its gone up 87bn = 13% In the 6 years before 2010 it went up 218bn = 48%
That means spending growth has been cut, but spending is still growing.
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
Also, the value of money declines over time. So, it needs to reflect that.
Indeed real figures should be used though given inflation has been negligible I suspect there has been some modest real terms growth in spending.
But yes in real terms once you exclude interest and protected departments spending has been cut in the rest. In some quite significantly.
Even 1.25% inflation over a seven year period starts to add up... But yes, I agree with everything you say :-)
"... the [Clinton] foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money."
Yet I read somewhere that the Clinton Foundation had been the recipient of British taxpayers money via the DfID. That must be worth a FoI request from some keen young journalist. Confirm the donation and then ask why taxpayers hard earned dosh was being handed over to a so called charity that the US authorities won't rate but is run by (and for the benefit of?) the Clintons?
Got to be worth a double page spread in the Mail I would have thought.
Comments
Though take away interest and certain departments like the NHS etc and it is being cut in the rest.
As for the pubs, The Green Man was a part of my childhood (a walk across the common and then a stop at there on the way home as it has a garden where I could be left with a packet of crisps and a lemonade whilst my parents indulged inside - see also The Telegraph PH) and in my teens was also a nice place to take young ladies (a few drinks and then a walk on the common). The Hare and Hounds I have been in once, when doing the old Young's circuit. Do you remember that? Get your card signed by the landlord of every Young's pub and the Brewery gave you a Young'' tie and a firkin of either ordinary or special.
This also means that they don't get "cool native religion" bonus points that usually mean that savage homophobia gets overlooked.
Sadly though some seem to want to bring the dark ages back and re-introduce religion, but it won't be the CoE that benefits.
I really wouldn't take that Alonso bet until I saw some testing...
But after calmly reminding them of their duty of care, he claimed he 'saw red' when one 'smirked' at him after he recalled how his sister died prematurely from brain cancer after doctors allegedly ignored her symptoms.
In an extraordinary outburst captured on camera, he bellowed: 'I think you should be disgusted with yourselves, you swore a Hippocratic Oath to protect people's lives - not to spit your dummy out and come out here'.
In the tense footage, Mr Minister can be heard bellowing at two male junior doctors: 'I've got no patience for you.'
He added that doctors were being egged on by 'Corbyn's cronies' and bullied by the trade unions who were bringing back ;dark days of the Seventies.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3395279/Junior-doctors-picket-lines-strike-40-years-Row-pay-contracts-leads-three-planned-walk-outs.html
I think the general protestant movement in the UK and Europe is now increasingly seen to be a tolerant sect held back by its non European branches and its own vocal European minorities.
Today's Iowa PPP, although has Trump in the lead is actually a bad one for him.
Trump's main attack on Cruz doesn't work, only 3% of Cruz voters say they will be less likely to vote Cruz if he was canadian, and most Cruz voters would go to Rubio rather than Trump as a second choice.
Looking at the tables it will be hard for Trump to get more than a third of the vote regardless what happens to Cruz.
However the same pollster has equally bad news for Hillary, although they got her ahead by 6, the gap with Sanders closed by 12, mirroring other polls that give it a close race now with Sanders having the momentum.
Quinnipiac actually has Sanders ahead by 5 points, approaching 50, a complete reversal from a month ago:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2314
Tomorrow is the DMR poll, my expectations, based on evangelical voters, is that Trump will cut Cruz's lead from 10 to 7 points in that poll, also I think Sanders will be either in the lead or very close to Hillary.
Problem is, on Thursday there is yet another GOP debate, and the last GOP debate isn't until 4 days before Iowa, so most of these polls are redundant, if one wants to bet on Iowa one has to wait until after the last debate.
But yes in real terms once you exclude interest and protected departments spending has been cut in the rest. In some quite significantly.
Could Biden bounce back? Worth a tenner?
This is a very Brownian move by Osborne, politically and fiscally. It isn't a good look.
I think the more interesting figures would be from the other side of the balance sheet - how much income is the Government getting in from tax receipts, asset sales and the like. The problem with spending isn't the spending but rather the gap between spending and income.
If your two figures start equal, increase your spending by 10% and your income by 20% and you're doing fine. It's doing the other way round that causes problems.
Gordon Brown's problems began when the income side collapsed as economic activity slowed in 2008-09.
But yes, I agree with everything you say :-)
No one else can enter the race at this stage, it's what prevented Christie in 2012 when Romney had proved to be crap.
If Hillary collapses the only other bet for the DNC establishment is O'Malley.
(Spectacularly unlikely but...)
HMRC receipts 14/15 = £515bn
The chances of him becoming tory leader are receding by the day.
1997 - £310bn
2001 - £387bn
2005 - £489bn
2008 - £565bn
2009 - £524bn
Coalition
2010 - £560bn
2014 - £644bn
Con
2015 TTM - £656bn
Actually, it works better the later Hillary withdraws and the better she'd done previously. That way, the voters from the early states send unpledged delegates by default.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/12/tory-council-leader-boobs-big-time/
Possibly the most insightful comment Dave made before he became PM was the one that started "Too many tweets..."
1997 - £503bn
2001 - £572bn
2005 - £652bn
2008 - £673bn
2009 - £627bn
Coalition
2010 - £641bn
2014 - £644bn
Con
2015 TTM - £656bn
I'm looking at the polls for Nevada and S.Carolina for the DNC race, Sanders doesn't have a chance in the south because african-americans hate him.
In Nevada though he's got a chance alright, last 3 polls had Hillary at 50% (old polls though), with Sanders at a third or just above and the rest undecided, pretty much same as Iowa before Christmas.
Basically Sanders odds are in reverse proportion to the share of african-americans, there are many in S.Carolina, but very few in Iowa, N.H and Nevada.
And schedule matters, in the DNC race Nevada comes before S.Carolina:
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/
So Sanders may end up winning all 3 early states., you now what that means?
It means opportunity for trading bets, Sanders odds are very low at the moment but the polls and potential victories and defeats will change them like a trampoline.
@johnpughmp
Just found a tenner on the green benches in the Commons
https://twitter.com/STJamesl/status/686991889527083008
Of course your suggestion will mean chaos on the convention floor and bitter fighting in front of the TV cameras.
Does anyone know what would be the deadline for actually appearing on the ballot in November? If eg Trump got bounced at the convention, would he be able to run as an Indy or would it be too late by then?
http://www.fec.gov/law/law.shtml
For the primaries here are the filling deadlines:
https://ballotpedia.org/Important_dates_in_the_2016_presidential_race
PB is great for questions like that, someone always comes up trumps (sic) with the answer!
So the currently uninvolved Bloomberg could decide quite late to run, but Trump would need to withdraw early from the primaries if he wanted to stand alone.
Let's be quite clear - they have her bang to rights on the emails with classified information, somewhere between 1350-1500. The reason for expanding the investigation and involving the Clinton Foundation is presumably because of stuff from the emails. This is potentially dangerous for her as the foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money.
The FBI is not political. Director Comey is a straight shooter, as is AG Lynch. They will take their time, and will not move to indict unless their case is absolutely bullet proof.
If Comey and Lynch move to indict and the WH stops it - that will have serious implications. Obama is very unpopular with the FBI already.
You think that after the democrats vote for an anti-wall street anti-banker socialist for the nomination that they are going to flock to Bloomberg who is a wall street guy?
He may split the vote and allow Trump to win.
It may be a repeat of the Florida 2010 senate race.
Another way of looking at it: when was the last time a left-wing vicar convinced his/her congregation of anything relating to politics?
I live in an old English village where church attendance is still good, mainly of course with very elderly well-dressed gentlemen and women, and UKIP+Conservative routinely get 85-90% of the vote.
My parents usually chuckle to themselves and laugh about yet another 'left wing' sermon whenever they go, and my father hasn't liked a single Archbishop of Canterbury for as long as I've been alive, but it doesn't stop them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI_fK7u9Cg4
"A more radical approach would be that suggested by Michael Johnson, a former investment banker who has written extensively on the matter for the Centre for Policy Studies think tank. Under his proposal, all reliefs would be abolished, but an “incentive” to save amounting to 50p in the pound – double the present one for basic rate taxpayers – would be offered up to a limit of £8,000 a year. This too would result in very considerable savings. It would also be significantly redistributional, a political positioning that Osborne seems to relish, perhaps oddly for a Conservative."
To him, politics is a game to be measured in seat tallies and opinion poll leads and the Conservative Party is merely a vehicle to allow him to do it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486629/Nov15_Receipts_Table_Final.pdf
"... the [Clinton] foundation is not set up like a charity, so much so that Charity Navigator refuses to rate it, as it's hard to track the money."
Yet I read somewhere that the Clinton Foundation had been the recipient of British taxpayers money via the DfID. That must be worth a FoI request from some keen young journalist. Confirm the donation and then ask why taxpayers hard earned dosh was being handed over to a so called charity that the US authorities won't rate but is run by (and for the benefit of?) the Clintons?
Got to be worth a double page spread in the Mail I would have thought.