politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio slips back on Betfair following what’s described as

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio slips back on Betfair following what’s described as “robotic” NH debate performance

The polls have been good and he was widely being tipped as the one who could stop Trump. That was before the final TV debate a few hours ago in New Hampshire.

Read the full story here

Speedy

To give an example of what the above tweet is referring, here is Dan Quayle 1988:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz9StNrkrIw

And here's Stockdale in 1992:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1w3FgB0Ohc

And they were both running for VP's not for Presidents, so if Rubio has done worse that those running for second what does it tell us about Rubio's abilities?

Pong

Some time ago I backed Kasich4POTUS @ 1000/1, then got cold feet and laid off @ ~ 350/1. Tonight I went back in on him @ 300/1 for £100

Just a hunch.

(yes yes, I know, gambling hunches can turn out to be very expensive!)

A more sensible man would wait for polling.

Anyways. Goodnight!

MikeSmithson

Pong said:

Some time ago I backed Kasich4POTUS @ 1000/1, then got cold feet and laid off @ ~ 350/1. Tonight I went back in on him @ 300/1 for £100

Just a hunch.

(yes yes, I know, gambling hunches can turn out to be very expensive!)

A more sensible man would wait for polling.

Anyways. Goodnight!

I've done similar. Kasich could surprise in NH on Tuesday. He's been working very hard there.

JohnLoony

Just as I was beginning to think that Rubio had at last provided the option of a viable, reasonably non-bonkers, non-Trump, non-Cruz, and capable-of-beating-Hillary candidate, and (more importantly) just five days after I predicted on Twitter that he would be the GOP candidate for POTUS, he has flopped, deflated, and been exposed as a vacuous nincompoop.

I think he did it deliberately, just to make my prediction look silly.

Chris Christie's traffic jam fiasco from a few years ago now looks like an insignificant pimple compared with the vast carbuncle which is gradually engulfing Hillary and the monstrous tumescence of the Trumpjuggernaut.

JohnLoony

Speedy said:

To give an example of what the above tweet is referring, here is Dan Quayle 1988:

And here's Stockdale in 1992:

And they were both running for VP's not for Presidents, so if Rubio has done worse that those running for second what does it tell us about Rubio's abilities?

"Self-destructive"? Quayle and Rubio self-destructed and deflated. Stockdale was never flated or structed in the first place, so in his case it didn't matter.

JohnLoony

Roberta McCain is 104 today. Perhaps destiny will call upon her to rescue the Republican Party from the vacuous dribbling incompetence of Rubioism-Trumpism?

DecrepitJohnL

Pulpstar on the previous thread suggested Rubio looked unwell.

MarqueeMark

Kasich got a good ovation when he entered the hall at the start of the debate.

But really, they all like the guys who went out in the early rounds of the All-comers No-hopers Championship...

MarqueeMark

Would anybody much really object if China went in and just absorbed North Korea into its territory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207

Toms

MarqueeMark said:

Would anybody much really object if China went in and just absorbed North Korea into its territory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207

Not particularly, no. But I seem to remember (correct me if I be wrong) that the Russians tried something of that sort with Finland and got a black eye..

peter_from_putney

As I mentioned before, Kasich is an excellent performer - check out his interviews on YouTube, as well as having a very impressive record as Governor of Ohio.
Everything suggests that he should be a front runner for the GOP nomination and thereby for the Presidency. But first and foremost he must do well, preferably very well, in the New Hampshire primary just to stay in the race.
If he does, he may take some stopping, after all he doesn't have a great deal to beat.

JosiasJessop

Toms said:

MarqueeMark said:

Would anybody much really object if China went in and just absorbed North Korea into its territory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207

Not particularly, no. But I seem to remember (correct me if I be wrong) that the Russians tried something of that sort with Finland and got a black eye..

Why would the Chinese want to? Another 25 million people who have been indoctrinated from birth into a personality cult, and who would add nothing to the Chinese economy or society for many years.

They also act as a buffer against the western-looking US-allied South Korea. And South Korea won't like it - having talked to some Koreans, it's surprising how many want to see south and north unified. They won't like the Chinese at their border for any number of reasons.

So it's not worth their bother. What might feasibly happen is the NK pi**es off the Chinese so much that they invade and depose the regime and military leadership. They then do a deal with SK saying that there is no longer a need for US presence. That way they remove the US from the peninsula, economically damage a rival (as SK would have to spend a fortune to bring NK up to speed over a long period), and develop friendlier relations with SK.

Toms

JosiasJessop said:

Toms said:

MarqueeMark said:

Would anybody much really object if China went in and just absorbed North Korea into its territory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35515207

Not particularly, no. But I seem to remember (correct me if I be wrong) that the Russians tried something of that sort with Finland and got a black eye..

Why would the Chinese want to? Another 25 million people who have been indoctrinated from birth into a personality cult, and who would add nothing to the Chinese economy or society for many years.

They also act as a buffer against the western-looking US-allied South Korea. And South Korea won't like it - having talked to some Koreans, it's surprising how many want to see south and north unified. They won't like the Chinese at their border for any number of reasons.

So it's not worth their bother. What might feasibly happen is the NK pi**es off the Chinese so much that they invade and depose the regime and military leadership. They then do a deal with SK saying that there is no longer a need for US presence. That way they remove the US from the peninsula, economically damage a rival (as SK would have to spend a fortune to bring NK up to speed over a long period), and develop friendlier relations with SK.

I can't fault that.

NorfolkTilIDie

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

NorfolkTilIDie

Dont see Kasich being competitive nationwide in primary. Too moderate for outside NE.

blackburn63

It seems Priti Patel is going to break cover and campaign to Leave.

I'd argue that's the most significant person that Leave could hope for. As we all know, campaigns are about momentum, it is definitely with the Outers

JosiasJessop

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

I think their defensive systems are mostly on the South Korean border anyway. But it's always extremely risky attacking a nuclear armed state. I don't think China will do that unless they feel they're about to be attacked anyway and therefore they have to take the lesser of two evils.

JosiasJessop

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

I think their defensive systems are mostly on the South Korean border anyway. But it's always extremely risky attacking a nuclear armed state. I don't think China will do that unless they feel they're about to be attacked anyway and therefore they have to take the lesser of two evils.

I tend to agree. Except the Chinese almost certainly know where NK's nukes and associated equipment are.

JosiasJessop

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

I tend to agree. Except the Chinese almost certainly know where NK's nukes and associated equipment are.

True, but on the assumption they are probably not lying around in a hanger it would be difficult to be sure of taking them all out safely at one go. All it takes is one surviving bomb and a fanatic to blow it up to cause a catastrophe, although again the actual damage would depend on size and design.

I think China will continue to play safe on this until or unless something forces its hand.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

Koreans are a fiercly nationalistic bunch. They would not tolerate Chinese rule. When NK falls (and it is really just a matter of time) it will unite with South Korea.

Reunification will have its costs, but in time it would make Korea much stronger. South Korea has a low fertility rate, and re-unification will resolve that for a while.

Personality cults are usually paper thin and built on fear. From Stalin to Saddam, when they fall, they are exposed very quickly.

JosiasJessop

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

I tend to agree. Except the Chinese almost certainly know where NK's nukes and associated equipment are.

True, but on the assumption they are probably not lying around in a hanger it would be difficult to be sure of taking them all out safely at one go. All it takes is one surviving bomb and a fanatic to blow it up to cause a catastrophe, although again the actual damage would depend on size and design.

I think China will continue to play safe on this until or unless something forces its hand.

Yes, that's my position as well. But if their hand is forced ...

peter_from_putney

blackburn63 said:

It seems Priti Patel is going to break cover and campaign to Leave.

I'd argue that's the most significant person that Leave could hope for. As we all know, campaigns are about momentum, it is definitely with the Outers

If true, this would show she has the drive and conviction to stand up to Dave, where so many others have so far been found wanting (not least Boris) and is likely to make her a contender to be the next Conservative leader, whenever that contest may take place.
Best-priced with Betway at 50/1, she is not without ability and possesses a certain degree of charm. I've had a pint's worth on her.
DYOR.

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

Koreans are a fiercly nationalistic bunch. They would not tolerate Chinese rule. When NK falls (and it is really just a matter of time) it will unite with South Korea.

Reunification will have its costs, but in time it would make Korea much stronger. South Korea has a low fertility rate, and re-unification will resolve that for a while.

Personality cults are usually paper thin and built on fear. From Stalin to Saddam, when they fall, they are exposed very quickly.

I don't think the Koreans would like it, but remember they were ruled by China for centuries and parts of what used to be Korea are still in northwestern China. Moreover, China effectively colonised the North to keep it alive during the early 1950s. So it wouldn't be unthinkable although it might be unpopular. The question might be whether the south would put up with a Chinese occupation of the North out of realpolitik to stabilise the area while officially classifying it as terra irredenta after the fashion of the Republic of Ireland.

Agree with your other points, except that I think the 'matter of time' could still be decades off.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

Koreans are a fiercly nationalistic bunch. They would not tolerate Chinese rule. When NK falls (and it is really just a matter of time) it will unite with South Korea.

Reunification will have its costs, but in time it would make Korea much stronger. South Korea has a low fertility rate, and re-unification will resolve that for a while.

Personality cults are usually paper thin and built on fear. From Stalin to Saddam, when they fall, they are exposed very quickly.

It sounds as if a certain amount of unusual and unaccustomed agreement has broken out over this issue. It must stop immediately!

On a related note, there must have been studies into how the reunification of West and East Germany has benefited or harmed Germany's economy over the last twenty-five years. That might be a good indicator.

Oh, and congratulations to Leicester. A great East Midlands team.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

That's very cunning, Mr. Jessop. You are a member of the People's Foreign Policy Committee, and I claim five yu'an.

Seems a shame about Rubio. And he wasn't even facing an audience of Yorkshiremen.

richardDodd

I fancy that China will have massive intel networks in NK..They probably know when the fat boy turns over in bed at night...

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

NorfolkTilIDie said:

China also has worry about Korean unification is that the place might then claim ethnic Korean area just north of NK within Chinas borders.

Only in the very long term. Reunification would cost SK so much that they wouldn't be able to expand further for many years. I really see only upsides for China - aside from the cost in men and equipment in deposing the NK regime. I reckon that'll prove harder than expected. But all NK needs to do is push China too far.

It might also get China kudos in the international community. Say NK suffers another massive famine, or explodes an above-ground nuclear bomb, or develops better ICBMs that threaten the region. Removing the threat might be seen as admirable and play well internally and internationally, especially as they'd gain no territory.

Having said that, I've no idea how strong the Chinese and NK armies are on their mutual border. Aren't most of NK's forces directed south?

Koreans are a fiercly nationalistic bunch. They would not tolerate Chinese rule. When NK falls (and it is really just a matter of time) it will unite with South Korea.

Reunification will have its costs, but in time it would make Korea much stronger. South Korea has a low fertility rate, and re-unification will resolve that for a while.

Personality cults are usually paper thin and built on fear. From Stalin to Saddam, when they fall, they are exposed very quickly.

It sounds as if a certain amount of unusual and unaccustomed agreement has broken out over this issue. It must stop immediately!

On a related note, there must have been studies into how the reunification of West and East Germany has benefited or harmed Germany's economy over the last twenty-five years. That might be a good indicator.

Oh, and congratulations to Leicester. A great East Midlands team.

When it comes to reunification, the cost will be secondary as it was in Germany.

Incidentally Deutschland 83 on C4 is a very interesting depiction of both sides of the wall just a few years before the collapse of East Germany.

Morris_Dancer

Government to look at transmogrifying babies into get out of jail cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35515003

It's not acceptable for people to get a harsher or lighter sentence based on whether they have kids or not. The punishment should fit the crime.

There are also 20 men in prison for every 1 woman. Don't see much in the way of concern about that.

Toms

After perusing today's Observer it occurred to me to wonder whether there is a law to the effect that a given party must have only a single leader. If not I would nominate the twins Angela and Maria Eagle to lead the Labour party and save it's fortunes.

Innocent_Abroad

Morris_Dancer said:

Government to look at transmogrifying babies into get out of jail cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35515003

It's not acceptable for people to get a harsher or lighter sentence based on whether they have kids or not. The punishment should fit the crime.

There are also 20 men in prison for every 1 woman. Don't see much in the way of concern about that.

It will be fun listening to a leader of the Women's Equality Party on this subject.

OldKingCole

Even in the 18th Century pregnant women were treated differently in the justice system.

Morris_Dancer

King Cole, there's certainly a case for pregnant women having that accounted for (perhaps having their sentence briefly deferred until the child is born). But the proposal involves [from the linked article]:

"The review will look at whether female offenders with babies could be dealt with by special problem-solving courts, housed in resettlement units or electronically tagged, rather than being locked up."

eek

JosiasJessop said:

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

If I was Turkey I think my response would be. Bring in planes to transport 70,000 into the nearest airport and we will provide enough coach from the border to fill up each plane as it arrives...

The EU really hasn't thought that complaint through. These are people who happily lived under ISIS who have run away as the town is liberated....

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

Even in the 18th Century pregnant women were treated differently in the justice system.

In the eighteenth century it was quite common for them to become pregnant as a result of the justice system,as prisons were mixed sex and didn't always have cells. It was an early part of the Howard League's campaigns to try and get this sorted, although I seem to remember it was a problem as late as the 1840s.

JosiasJessop

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

If I was Turkey I think my response would be. Bring in planes to transport 70,000 into the nearest airport and we will provide enough coach from the border to fill up each plane as it arrives...

The EU really hasn't thought that complaint through. These are people who happily lived under ISIS who have run away as the town is liberated....

I'm not sure you can claim "happily lived". ISIS have rather strong penalties against locals who try to flee their vision of a caliphate. Most people may just have tried to live as well as they could under the new regime: keep out of view and not rock the boat. Just as civilians have for millennia under such takeovers.

It might just be that, with the town being surrounded, there are escape routes and ISIS are more bothered with defence than internal suppression.

logical_song

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

If I was Turkey I think my response would be. Bring in planes to transport 70,000 into the nearest airport and we will provide enough coach from the border to fill up each plane as it arrives...

The EU really hasn't thought that complaint through. These are people who happily lived under ISIS who have run away as the town is liberated....

Is it correct that "These are people who happily lived under ISIS"?
Can we have a link to back that up?
I'm not an expert but I thought that that area was controlled by the Free Syrian Army.

foxinsoxuk

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Even in the 18th Century pregnant women were treated differently in the justice system.

In the eighteenth century it was quite common for them to become pregnant as a result of the justice system,as prisons were mixed sex and didn't always have cells. It was an early part of the Howard League's campaigns to try and get this sorted, although I seem to remember it was a problem as late as the 1840s.

Also getting pregnant "to plead her belly" was a way of dodging the hangman or transportation.

foxinsoxuk

On topic, can anyone explain "why Rubio?", his appeal is lost on me. I can see Cruz being popular with the rednecks, and Trump has a certain notoriety and anti-politics appeal, but Rubio?

Morris_Dancer

Off-topic: saw most of the France/Italy game. Seems to me that two important things occurred:
1) I was totally wrong in my prediction Italy would be slaughtered.
2) On a related note, the Italians were done out of a famous (and rare away) win by a dodgy penalty-that-wasn't.

Pulpstar

Not sure Kasich will get the presidency, though @Pong's punt is almost certainly value. He'd make a good VP choice though for any of the candidates I think as he can get moderates and independents onboard.

Pulpstar

foxinsoxuk said:

On topic, can anyone explain "why Rubio?", his appeal is lost on me. I can see Cruz being popular with the rednecks, and Trump has a certain notoriety and anti-politics appeal, but Rubio?

Hardcore neoconservative christian fundamentalist that looks smart in a suit.

Blue_rog

Morris_Dancer said:

Off-topic: saw most of the France/Italy game. Seems to me that two important things occurred:
1) I was totally wrong in my prediction Italy would be slaughtered.
2) On a related note, the Italians were done out of a famous (and rare away) win by a dodgy penalty-that-wasn't.

I completely agree, they woz robbed

Scrapheap_as_was

Shame they don't have a Alli on the bench to bring on..

Bromptonaut

blackburn63 said:

It seems Priti Patel is going to break cover and campaign to Leave.

I'd argue that's the most significant person that Leave could hope for. As we all know, campaigns are about momentum, it is definitely with the Outers

Woman on Clapham omnibus, "Priti who?".

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Bromptonaut, welcome to pb.com, and Priti Patel, future Prime Minister.

richardDodd

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

HurstLlama

Morris_Dancer said:

Government to look at transmogrifying babies into get out of jail cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35515003

... The punishment should fit the crime. ...

Oh, you git! Why did you have to use that phrase? I now have the Mikado's song going through my head and it is going to be stuck there all day.

"My object, all sublime,
I shall achieve in time
To make the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime ...."

foxinsoxuk

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

On topic, can anyone explain "why Rubio?", his appeal is lost on me. I can see Cruz being popular with the rednecks, and Trump has a certain notoriety and anti-politics appeal, but Rubio?

Hardcore neoconservative christian fundamentalist that looks smart in a suit.

Republican politics is a bit alien, but surely they have any number of those, and most will be taller!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Llama, because I'm so well-educated I can quote operas even when I have never seen them.

SouthamObserver

I'd be very surprised if China allowed the North and South of Korea to reunite. And it would be China's decision. Far more likely, surely, is a faux capitalist, authoritarian regime that would continue to be a buffer zone between the Chinese and a country with a lot of US bases on its soil.

German reunification was only possible because of the general collapse of the Soviet system and the Soviet Union's own terminal weakness.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Bromptonaut, welcome to pb.com, and Priti Patel, future Prime Minister.

Patel is far too right wing for British consumption. The Tories will not choose her. And if she is to lead the Leave campaign she needs to improve her communication skills.

Plato_Says

Thanks to all for running commentary on debate. Most useful and entertaining.

foxinsoxuk

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

Innocent_Abroad

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Llama, because I'm so well-educated I can quote operas even when I have never seen them.

Well-educated people know the difference between opera and operetta.

Really well-educated people (of whom I am not one) don't even have to consult Wikipedia.

richardDodd

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

I'd be very surprised if China allowed the North and South of Korea to reunite. And it would be China's decision. Far more likely, surely, is a faux capitalist, authoritarian regime that would continue to be a buffer zone between the Chinese and a country with a lot of US bases on its soil.

German reunification was only possible because of the general collapse of the Soviet system and the Soviet Union's own terminal weakness.

One wonders how long China can go on with a capitalist economy and a purportedly Communist government.

Sooner or later there will be democratic reforms in China. People with economic freedom soon want political freedom too.

Pulpstar

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

foxinsoxuk said:

On topic, can anyone explain "why Rubio?", his appeal is lost on me. I can see Cruz being popular with the rednecks, and Trump has a certain notoriety and anti-politics appeal, but Rubio?

Hardcore neoconservative christian fundamentalist that looks smart in a suit.

Republican politics is a bit alien, but surely they have any number of those, and most will be taller!

The only person on the stage more right wing than Rubio is Cruz, and Cruz's foreign policy is more sensible.

Plato_Says

Dan Hannan
Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ

foxinsoxuk

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

What convinces you that she has the skills needed?

There are any number of politicians I don't like; it doesn't mean that they would be a good PM. John McDonnell for example!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.

Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

I'd be very surprised if China allowed the North and South of Korea to reunite. And it would be China's decision. Far more likely, surely, is a faux capitalist, authoritarian regime that would continue to be a buffer zone between the Chinese and a country with a lot of US bases on its soil.

German reunification was only possible because of the general collapse of the Soviet system and the Soviet Union's own terminal weakness.

One wonders how long China can go on with a capitalist economy and a purportedly Communist government.

Sooner or later there will be democratic reforms in China. People with economic freedom soon want political freedom too.

There are definitely emerging pressure points and the regime is undoubtedly getting a lot touchier, but I think there is a fair way to go yet before there are significant democratic reforms in China.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.

Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.

The next Tory leader is unlikely to be facing Corbyn for a significant period of time, if at all. Should the Tory membership become as self-indulgent as the Labour membership, they may well end up paying the price. Not to the degree that Labour will under Corbyn, of course, but perhaps to the extent that they lose power. And the Tories really cannot afford to lose power. Their actions of issues such as party funding have made it open season on them once they are back in opposition.

Plato_Says

Jim Pickard
Jeremy Hunt always looks pleasantly surprised, as if he has been given the purple Quality Street.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Observer, do you think the Chairman will stand down, or will he be pushed?

TheScreamingEagles

HurstLlama said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Government to look at transmogrifying babies into get out of jail cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35515003

... The punishment should fit the crime. ...

Oh, you git! Why did you have to use that phrase? I now have the Mikado's song going through my head and it is going to be stuck there all day.

"My object, all sublime,
I shall achieve in time
To make the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime ...."

So that hasn't made you filled to the brim with girlish glee then?

foxinsoxuk

Plato_Says said:

Dan Hannan
Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ

The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.

Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

No just shovelling money to them. They prefer to make money by trading with ISIS and killing the Kurds while they can get away with it.

oxfordsimon

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Llama, because I'm so well-educated I can quote operas even when I have never seen them.

misquote...

it is 'to let the punishment'

(I have been involved in five productions of The Mikado - including playing the title role once....)

dr_spyn

Does Jamie Oliver have a sugar free or reduced sugar series of books to sell?

http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/fruit-recipes/raspberry-syllabub-with-langues-de-chat/#Ais8oifSDUWc1Dgl.97

I wonder how he would rework that.

OldKingCole

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

She’s quite popular with her local party and is beginning to make a good impression as as a “local” MP. I might find out a bit more about that aspect of her shortly.
Having said that, I can’t ever see me ever voting for her.

foxinsoxuk

TheScreamingEagles said:

HurstLlama said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Government to look at transmogrifying babies into get out of jail cards:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35515003

... The punishment should fit the crime. ...

Oh, you git! Why did you have to use that phrase? I now have the Mikado's song going through my head and it is going to be stuck there all day.

"My object, all sublime,
I shall achieve in time
To make the punishment fit the crime,
The punishment fit the crime ...."

So that hasn't made you filled to the brim with girlish glee then?

Steady! HL is the very model of a modern Major General...

Casino_Royale

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Simon, I bow to your superior knowledge.

Innocent_Abroad

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.

Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.

The next Tory leader is unlikely to be facing Corbyn for a significant period of time, if at all. Should the Tory membership become as self-indulgent as the Labour membership, they may well end up paying the price. Not to the degree that Labour will under Corbyn, of course, but perhaps to the extent that they lose power. And the Tories really cannot afford to lose power. Their actions of issues such as party funding have made it open season on them once they are back in opposition.

The Tories will never lose power, at least in England.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

George Osborne is the greatest master strategist the world has ever known.

He would loan Javid 35 MPs to ensure he was in the final two

JosiasJessop

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

"EU calls on Turkey to let Syrian refugees cross border"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35514855

I hope they do, but I can see why they wouldn't: it's not as if anyone's been thanking them for what they have done for the refugees over the last four years. Especially on here.

No just shovelling money to them. They prefer to make money by trading with ISIS and killing the Kurds while they can get away with it.

Eliza, if that level of 'analysis' is the same as you put into Scottish affairs, then no wonder you're so often wrong and ill-tempered ...

richardDodd

FSX..Priti is usually very well informed and delivers her message with a certain amount of authority .. she also seems able to think on her feet at the Despatch box..but that may be because of the dearth of talent on the opposite side..

Plato_Says

Alex White
Greece has declared Turkey a 'safe third country' meaning it can turn back refugees. Significant DE/FR pressure to displace the problem

Steven_Whaley

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.

SouthamObserver

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, do you think the Chairman will stand down, or will he be pushed?

I don't know. But I do believe that there are signs that some on the left are beginning to realise that under Corbyn and his crew Labour cannot win. They are now looking to the centre and the right to provide ways in which there can be some kind of rapprochement. The recent Owen Jones article in which he essentially recognised that Corbyn won because of the abjectness of his opponents, rather than for what he was specifically advocating, was pretty significant IMO.

I also think that the broad-church Sadiq Khan campaign in London - which is avowedly non-Corbynite in approach - is making an impression across the party. It has certainly surprised me (though I think the Tories still have an excellent shot thanks to Corbyn and Khan's comments in the past on quotas).

This has all got a long way to go, but I am slightly more confident than I was that Labour is not doomed to become a far left and perpetually irrelevant organisation.

Pulpstar

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

Fantasyland !

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

George Osborne is the greatest master strategist the world has ever known.

He would loan Javid 35 MPs to ensure he was in the final two

Those numbers are after he's done the lending.

He wouldn't know exactly how the final votes would stack up. I know he likes to think Tory MPs are mere pawns to be played in his master plan for world domination but they are people in their own right, won't all obediently do as he asks them to in the privacy of a secret ballot, and he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is.

Tory MPs will make sure the MP opposing Osborne isn't the one he wants.

TheScreamingEagles

Steven_Whaley said:

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.

I'm not a fan of her either. She's in favour of the death penalty and put in a very poor performance trying to defend it.

The only flip side to her I can see is the lefty meltdown it would create if the Tories elected another woman leader, and an ethnic minority one too!

DecrepitJohnL

foxinsoxuk said:

Plato_Says said:

Dan Hannan
Perhaps without intending to, the Economist shows why we should #VoteLeave. Imagine where we'll be in, say, 2050. https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ

The trend over the last few years is likely to reverse, as China and emerging markets are going into a slump while the EU is coming out of one. Trade with the EU is still 45% so not insignificant.

Can anyone name a trading block or country seperating that increased mutual trade after breaking up? Of course finding markets elsewhere is always possible, but not easy and takes time.

The graph at https://t.co/GGE812nCsZ is a bit silly for two reasons: it is pleasingly symmetrical but then it has to be because the percentages must add up to 100; secondly, there is no indication of volume.

Plato_Says

She's too hardline for me. She has the manner of a prosecutor. Who'd push for the death penalty.

Steven_Whaley said:

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

George Osborne is the greatest master strategist the world has ever known.

He would loan Javid 35 MPs to ensure he was in the final two

Those numbers are after he's done the lending.

He wouldn't know exactly how the final votes would stack up. I know he likes to think Tory MPs are mere pawns to be played in his master plan for world domination but they are people in their own right, won't all obediently do as he asks them to in the privacy of a secret ballot, and he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is.

Tory MPs will make sure the MP opposing Osborne isn't the one he wants.

I remember IDS supporters voting for Clarke to ensure he was on the final ballot, and nearly stopping IDS making the final two.

foxinsoxuk

Plato_Says said:

Alex White
Greece has declared Turkey a 'safe third country' meaning it can turn back refugees. Significant DE/FR pressure to displace the problem

Immediately returning arrivals is the only way to stop the flow. I hope that Greece gets all the assistance that it needs to implement this.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, if the Conservatives chose an ethnic minority female leader some very PC types in Labour would react like the black dalek at the end of Remembrance of the Daleks.

Pong

I was doing my due diligence on predictit (Has anyone here deposited/withdrawn successfully?) anyway, I came across this interesting snippet;

"Jeb Bush’s campaign staff have told her they assuage nervous donors by pointing to Bush’s odds on PredictIt, where he currently ranks as the second likeliest Republican nominee behind Marco Rubio."

http://time.com/4062628/fantasy-sports-predictit-political-forecasting/

That creates a certain incentive to... umm...

notme

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Foxinsox, not sure how much this has changed, but certainly a few years ago there was a defined state stake in large financial institutions and limited scope for foreign investment/ownership. It is capitalism, but not, if you like, full capitalism.

Mr. Observer, if the Conservatives think Corbyn's a dud, they're likelier to indulge their own preference rather than that of the electorate when it comes to picking Cameron's replacement.

The next Tory leader is unlikely to be facing Corbyn for a significant period of time, if at all. Should the Tory membership become as self-indulgent as the Labour membership, they may well end up paying the price. Not to the degree that Labour will under Corbyn, of course, but perhaps to the extent that they lose power. And the Tories really cannot afford to lose power. Their actions of issues such as party funding have made it open season on them once they are back in opposition.

You have to remember, despite labour's cry of foul over party reform, they have form themselves in this, their Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act in 2001 might as well have been called the "Stop Michael Ashcroft from being able to donate to the Tory party Act". It was specifically designed (rightly or wrongly) to stop people from overseas donating to the Tory party, with Michael Ashcroft the primary target.

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, if the Conservatives chose an ethnic minority female leader some very PC types in Labour would react like the black dalek at the end of Remembrance of the Daleks.

Tokenism is a very poor way to choose a leader, and the most certain way to pick the wrong one.

Sunil_Prasannan

Rubio came THIRD in Iowa, FFS! How could he be described as the "winner" as some people on PB did last week?

peter_from_putney

Steven_Whaley said:

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.

" I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her."

That's a bit strong isn't it? Did she take your last Rolo or snitch on you at school?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, if the Conservatives chose an ethnic minority female leader some very PC types in Labour would react like the black dalek at the end of Remembrance of the Daleks.

The bigger meltdown would be on the far right.

Mortimer

Am wondering if Jeb remains in the race because he expects everyone else to fall out of it....

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Casino_Royale said:

foxinsoxuk said:

richardDodd said:

MD Agree..Priti would make a good PM..

Whenever I have seen her in the media she comes over as very cold and lacking in the human touch.

Her politics may fit the Leaver wing of the Tories, but I cannot see her getting enough nominations to go to the final ballot.

100 backbench MPs with BOO sympathy would be plenty to get to the final ballot. They'll rally around the most telegenic leader in opposition to Osborne.

Let's say the final round (with Boris and May eliminated along the way) is something like..

Osborne - 165 MPs
Patel - 100 MPs
Javid - 66 MPs

She goes through with Osborne to the members vote.

George Osborne is the greatest master strategist the world has ever known.

He would loan Javid 35 MPs to ensure he was in the final two

Those numbers are after he's done the lending.

He wouldn't know exactly how the final votes would stack up. I know he likes to think Tory MPs are mere pawns to be played in his master plan for world domination but they are people in their own right, won't all obediently do as he asks them to in the privacy of a secret ballot, and he's not quite as clever as he thinks he is.

Tory MPs will make sure the MP opposing Osborne isn't the one he wants.

I remember IDS supporters voting for Clarke to ensure he was on the final ballot, and nearly stopping IDS making the final two.

Yes, that's just it: you never quite know. It's difficult to split the cake three ways in a way that guarantees you'll be left with just the two pieces you want, particularly when you're cutting blindly with the knife.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Foxinsox, I agree entirely. Tokenism leads to morons like Warsi sitting in Cabinet.

I am guided by a higher principle. I backed Patel at 50/1.

Casino_Royale

Plato_Says said:

She's too hardline for me. She has the manner of a prosecutor. Who'd push for the death penalty.

Steven_Whaley said:

richardDodd said:

If Foxinsoxuk and SO don't like Priti then it would seem she is a good choice for PM..

I don't like her either. I can't detect the slightest trace of humanity or goodness in her. She's probably the only senior Conservative I can think of who would push me into even considering voting for a Corbyn lead Labour Party.

Thatcher was in favour of the death penalty.

This isn't an issue.