Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest WH2016 and LAB leadership betting

SystemSystem Posts: 11,705
edited August 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest WH2016 and LAB leadership betting

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    First :)
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited August 2016
    A miserable second, like Owen Smith.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    First :)

    Bloody Northerners ;)
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Fourth like Labour.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited August 2016

    Not sure what Team GB tactics were for that Olympic road race, didn't seem like they had any.

    So used to Team Sky having everything all planned to the millisecond, seemed very odd to have Cummings blow up with 100km to go, Thomas to go off without Froome etc etc etc.

    Cummings was the outrider.
    He blew up before they even hit the big climbs. There didn't seem like there was any sort of coordinated approach. When he put the hammer down, Froome and Thomas were at the back having a piss and changing bikes.

    TBH, I think they were all just f##ked from the Tour de France. Thomas was really struggling on the climbs to stay with the leading bunch, even before Nibali attacked. In a Tour de France stage that isn't normally enough to break Thomas, it requires 3-4 of the very best going 100% to the max to make him blow up.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,602
    edited August 2016
    ‘There’s nothing dodgy’: questions over Jeremy Corbyn donation

    Labour leader urged to explain £10,000 raised for his 2015 campaign at dinner organised by Palestinian group

    A Palestinian group whose founder once praised the militant Islamist group Hamas held a fundraising dinner at which it collected £10,000 for Jeremy Corbyn’s last leadership campaign, documents seen by the Observer reveal

    Friends of al-Aqsa gave Corbyn’s team a cheque for £10,000 in August 2015, an investigation by this newspaper has found, although the gift has never been made public. Any donation above £7,500 should be declared to the Electoral Commission.

    Corbyn’s campaign said it did not declare the donation because its bank subsequently rejected the cheque, as it was made out to the wrong person. A spokesman for Corbyn was unable to explain on Saturday what then happened to the cash raised. A spokesman said: “I’m told a second cheque may have been sent, but this was not received by the campaign.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/06/jeremy-corbyn-campaign-donation-palestine?CMP=twt_gu
  • Options

    A Palestinian group whose founder once praised the militant Islamist group Hamas held a fundraising dinner at which it collected £10,000 for Jeremy Corbyn’s last leadership campaign, documents seen by the Observer reveal

    Friends of al-Aqsa gave Corbyn’s team a cheque for £10,000 in August 2015, an investigation by this newspaper has found, although the gift has never been made public. Any donation above £7,500 should be declared to the Electoral Commission.

    Corbyn’s campaign said it did not declare the donation because its bank subsequently rejected the cheque, as it was made out to the wrong person. A spokesman for Corbyn was unable to explain on Saturday what then happened to the cash raised. A spokesman said: “I’m told a second cheque may have been sent, but this was not received by the campaign.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/06/jeremy-corbyn-campaign-donation-palestine?CMP=twt_gu

    They don't call him Jahadi Jez for nothing.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,474
    What is wrong with the headers on PB today - I can't read the stories or the comments on my iPad without the page jumping up and down and there is a huge lag on entering comments
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

  • Options
    SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    edited August 2016
    SeanT said:

    Pretty fierce French Twitterspleen re Charleroi.

    A lot of it from high-profile mainstream French rightwingers - not just the FN.

    "They are at war and we do nothing" - etc

    Everytime I heard Charleroi today, I thought of of the 1970 movie Waterloo, and the immortal line spoken by Christopher Plumber (as the Iron Duke) at the news that Napoleon has turned his flank at Charleroi

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066549/quotes?item=qt0456844

    By God, that man does war honor.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    Good post.
  • Options

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    Excellent point.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    MTimT said:
    Yes. It's a testament to the times that people have been entirely unsurprised. Belgians really are reaping what they've sewn.
  • Options
    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    A triumph of hope over reality.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072
    edited August 2016
    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    Excellent point.
    Ironically, it is because we have got the habituals in a box, that we can try and rehabilitate them. Hence the Gove idea of getting rid of the victorian prisons, building new ones (while actually making money on the deal) and pushing forward with more education etc. is the right one. The new prisons are needed, since it is impossible to run the classes etc in the old ones...

    Mind you, the evidence is that the biggest factor in rehabilitation is age - the habituals are typically young. When they get to their mid thirties they tend to drop out of crime - it's not generally a profitable career. A study the Economist did a while back suggested that the average gang member in the US made rather less than working part time at McDonalds....
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.

    The inclusion of Nigeria does make a LOL moment.

    There's a lot more to GDP than population and commodities.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    34 years of having the money tied up. :/
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    34 years of having the money tied up. :/
    The amusing bit is that the Nigerian economy has probably halved in US dollar terms since the report was published. ( As has the Russian one)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    34 years of having the money tied up. :/

    Not tied up. Just a future (potential) liability.

    Assuming both sides trust each other.

  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    Russia has just about turned its demographics around. Sadly, I'll be dead in 2050, so unable to wager :).
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    I thought due to demographics even Germany was forecast to decline below the UK some point in the mid 2030s.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016
    IanB2 said:

    What is wrong with the headers on PB today - I can't read the stories or the comments on my iPad without the page jumping up and down and there is a huge lag on entering comments

    It's jumping around all over the place and keeps reloading as it runs out of memory. Started with this thread for me, last one was fine, the Vanilla thread also looks okay so probably worth switching to that.
    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/3976/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-latest-wh2016-and-lab-leadership-betting#latest
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    OK. I'll do you a bet. We'll divide the cost of the courts system by the number of prosecutors cases to get a total cost per case.

    Less than £10,000 (which is what you reckon for even the simplest magistrate case) and you pay my £100. More, and I pay you.
  • Options
    MTimT said:
    Yeap. Just another mental ill man known locally as Dave with no obvious nterrorist motive.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    I thought due to demographics even Germany was forecast to decline below the UK some point in the mid 2030s.
    Their population is now growing again.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Like for like comparisons may be difficult. The borders of three of that mooted top ten have changed in the last 35 years. Several of that mooted top ten might well see their boundaries change in the next 35 years.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    edited August 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    OK. I'll do you a bet. We'll divide the cost of the courts system by the number of prosecutors cases to get a total cost per case.

    Less than £10,000 (which is what you reckon for even the simplest magistrate case) and you pay my £100. More, and I pay you.
    Not rich enough to risk money like that :-)

    The problem with doing those sums would be coming up with an honest way of dividing the non-direct costs between the cases. One of the giant fraud cases, lasting years, with silks all over the place, vs Fred pleading guilty to assault at the magistrates...

    Hmmm.. could be an interest subject for a academic study. You could probably get an MPhil out of doing a good job on that.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    I thought due to demographics even Germany was forecast to decline below the UK some point in the mid 2030s.
    Their population is now growing again.
    Not optimal growth of easy to integrate hard working types though. :wink:
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    I thought due to demographics even Germany was forecast to decline below the UK some point in the mid 2030s.
    Their population is now growing again.
    Not optimal growth of easy to integrate hard working types though. :wink:
    That is a fabulous understatement.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    It is pretty hard to imagine a reform that wouldn't be popular.... Actually that is a challenge...

    Hmmmmm....

    Return to hereditary peers only? Could sell that as "sack all the failed politicians".....

    Any suggestions for an unpopular reform?
  • Options

    MTimT said:
    Yeap. Just another mental ill man known locally as Dave with no obvious nterrorist motive.
    Alright, Rodney?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,072

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    OK. I'll do you a bet. We'll divide the cost of the courts system by the number of prosecutors cases to get a total cost per case.

    Less than £10,000 (which is what you reckon for even the simplest magistrate case) and you pay my £100. More, and I pay you.
    Not rich enough to risk money like that :-)

    The problem with doing those sums would be coming up with an honest way of dividing the non-direct costs between the cases. One of the giant fraud cases, lasting years, with silks all over the place, vs Fred pleading guilty to assault at the magistrates...

    Hmmm.. could be an interest subject for a academic study. You could probably get an MPhil out of doing a good job on that.
    But I'm offering you all of that :)

    The total bill for the Department of Justice divided by the total number of cases tried in a year.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,292
    edited August 2016
    Belgium Dave isn't even making the front pages of tomorrows papers. Shows how things have gone.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    Crap is indeed exactly what it is.

    I wonder what a similar publication might have looked like in say 1925? Or even 1965?
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    I would:

    * Allow the heridatries to die off. I understand why there was some "legitimate expectation" problem with abolishing them on the spot, but that's no reason to replace them when they die out.
    *Abolish the Lords spiritual, but make clear that faith leaders are a valued part of the House of Lords and encourage them to seek life peerages.
    * Follow through on encouraging members to retire. Consider how the peers who no longer contribute can be identified.
    * Adopt a "two out one in" strategy, for the time being. The PM, LOTO, etc, can still put people forward, just tighter numbers. Consider what level is appropriate, perhaps 4-5 hundred.

    I realise this is nothing radical, but I think it would straighten things out to a considerable extent
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    It is pretty hard to imagine a reform that wouldn't be popular.... Actually that is a challenge...

    Hmmmmm....

    Return to hereditary peers only? Could sell that as "sack all the failed politicians".....

    Any suggestions for an unpopular reform?
    The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing


    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    OK. I'll do you a bet. We'll divide the cost of the courts system by the number of prosecutors cases to get a total cost per case.

    Less than £10,000 (which is what you reckon for even the simplest magistrate case) and you pay my £100. More, and I pay you.
    Not rich enough to risk money like that :-)

    The problem with doing those sums would be coming up with an honest way of dividing the non-direct costs between the cases. One of the giant fraud cases, lasting years, with silks all over the place, vs Fred pleading guilty to assault at the magistrates...

    Hmmm.. could be an interest subject for a academic study. You could probably get an MPhil out of doing a good job on that.
    But I'm offering you all of that :)

    The total bill for the Department of Justice divided by the total number of cases tried in a year.
    I make it ~4.3k-5.6k per case your honour. Based on MoJ figures.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Give Matt a peerage, quick https://t.co/2kNirB6S6s
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. [...]

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    OK. I'll do you a bet. We'll divide the cost of the courts system by the number of prosecutors cases to get a total cost per case.

    Less than £10,000 (which is what you reckon for even the simplest magistrate case) and you pay my £100. More, and I pay you.
    Not rich enough to risk money like that :-)

    The problem with doing those sums would be coming up with an honest way of dividing the non-direct costs between the cases. One of the giant fraud cases, lasting years, with silks all over the place, vs Fred pleading guilty to assault at the magistrates...

    Hmmm.. could be an interest subject for a academic study. You could probably get an MPhil out of doing a good job on that.
    But I'm offering you all of that :)

    The total bill for the Department of Justice divided by the total number of cases tried in a year.
    The actual stat would be interesting, particularly the skew.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    It is pretty hard to imagine a reform that wouldn't be popular.... Actually that is a challenge...

    Hmmmmm....

    Return to hereditary peers only? Could sell that as "sack all the failed politicians".....

    Any suggestions for an unpopular reform?
    The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.
    That is indeed a potential issue. Ours has been a system of unequal chambers for some time, there are plenty of ways to have a PM system and 2 elected chambers, but the current membership of the Commons will need a culture change as much as the Lords will need changing.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    What is wrong with the headers on PB today - I can't read the stories or the comments on my iPad without the page jumping up and down and there is a huge lag on entering comments

    It's jumping around all over the place and keeps reloading as it runs out of memory. Started with this thread for me, last one was fine, the Vanilla thread also looks okay so probably worth switching to that.
    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/3976/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-latest-wh2016-and-lab-leadership-betting#latest
    @PBModerator @rcs1000 the issue seems to be either the second image in the header "2016 Labour Leadership Contest" or something between the two images. The first image is static but the second one and everything below on the page are jumping around and It's making iPads go crazy!
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    What is wrong with the headers on PB today - I can't read the stories or the comments on my iPad without the page jumping up and down and there is a huge lag on entering comments

    It's jumping around all over the place and keeps reloading as it runs out of memory. Started with this thread for me, last one was fine, the Vanilla thread also looks okay so probably worth switching to that.
    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/3976/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-latest-wh2016-and-lab-leadership-betting#latest
    @PBModerator @rcs1000 the issue seems to be either the second image in the header "2016 Labour Leadership Contest" or something between the two images. The first image is static but the second one and everything below on the page are jumping around and It's making iPads go crazy!
    crApple :lol:
  • Options
    JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited August 2016
    runnymede said:
    It's a dumb idea. I say that as a working class kid who went to grammar and thence to uni. The problems the SMs caused outweigh the benefits to the lucky few such as yours truly.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    John_M said:

    runnymede said:
    It's a dumb idea. I say that as a working class kid who went to grammar and thence to uni. The problems the SMs caused outweigh the benefits to the lucky few such as yours truly.
    Yes, but the current proposals are really to add a handful more grammars to the existing handful, not a return to a national two-tier system
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    edited August 2016
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    It is pretty hard to imagine a reform that wouldn't be popular.... Actually that is a challenge...

    Hmmmmm....

    Return to hereditary peers only? Could sell that as "sack all the failed politicians".....

    Any suggestions for an unpopular reform?
    The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.
    As is usually said in these discussions, first it needs to be decided what a reformed House of Lords is *for*. Once we've decided that, we can look at the sort of people we want sitting there, then look at how that can come about.

    Too many people start their thinking of Lords reform from the wrong end, try to force the earlier questions to fit their preconceived notion of how the process of getting people into the Lords should work.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    It is pretty hard to imagine a reform that wouldn't be popular.... Actually that is a challenge...

    Hmmmmm....

    Return to hereditary peers only? Could sell that as "sack all the failed politicians".....

    Any suggestions for an unpopular reform?
    The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.
    As is usually said in these discussions, first it needs to be decided what a reformed House of Lords is *for*. Once we've decided that, we can look at the sort of people we want sitting there, then look at how that can come about.

    Too many people start their thinking of Lords reform from the wrong end and try to force the earlier questions to fit their preconceived notion of how the process of getting people into the Lords should work.
    A revising chamber.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: Corbyn rules out 2nd referendum or election attempt to reverse Brexit – interview with @paulwaugh https://t.co/z4H8skkFKN
  • Options
    JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Corbyn rules out 2nd referendum or election attempt to reverse Brexit – interview with @paulwaugh https://t.co/z4H8skkFKN

    Sensible chap....
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054



    I would:

    * Allow the heridatries to die off. I understand why there was some "legitimate expectation" problem with abolishing them on the spot, but that's no reason to replace them when they die out.
    *Abolish the Lords spiritual, but make clear that faith leaders are a valued part of the House of Lords and encourage them to seek life peerages.
    * Follow through on encouraging members to retire. Consider how the peers who no longer contribute can be identified.
    * Adopt a "two out one in" strategy, for the time being. The PM, LOTO, etc, can still put people forward, just tighter numbers. Consider what level is appropriate, perhaps 4-5 hundred.

    I realise this is nothing radical, but I think it would straighten things out to a considerable extent

    Given the historic British reluctance for radical constitutional change, and that we have enough of that going on at present thank you very much given the state of the Union, less than radical changes would seem the best approach quite frankly.

    Personally while in my heart I know it is not really right for anyone not elected to hold a position of such potential power and influence, I do think an appointed HoL done right, in an ideal world, has plenty to recommend it - a revising chamber full of the most notable of politicians, but also those who would not normally seek election and have much to contribute legislatively, from business, charity, religion, military, law, civil service etc - but given the practice would always become corrupted, maybe just giving in and going full elected is the way to go, as it'll happen eventually.

    There does seem little reason why the Hereditaries keep getting replaced. Several former members or prospective members of the HoL took up the opportunity to be elected into office when they got the chance, and even after that they could get back into the HoL with a Life Peerage on top of their hereditary peerage, so no hereditary peer need be barred from governmental work if they want. And since most already don't get a place in the House of Peers, it doesn't diminish the nature of the heriditaries more than is already the case.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    I would:

    * Allow the heridatries to die off. I understand why there was some "legitimate expectation" problem with abolishing them on the spot, but that's no reason to replace them when they die out.
    *Abolish the Lords spiritual, but make clear that faith leaders are a valued part of the House of Lords and encourage them to seek life peerages.
    * Follow through on encouraging members to retire. Consider how the peers who no longer contribute can be identified.
    * Adopt a "two out one in" strategy, for the time being. The PM, LOTO, etc, can still put people forward, just tighter numbers. Consider what level is appropriate, perhaps 4-5 hundred.

    I realise this is nothing radical, but I think it would straighten things out to a considerable extent

    From your suggestions I would say:

    *There should be no need to wait to abolish the heriditaries - I don't know why only that small number was set to remain in the late 90s, or why the number is fixed, but it's been nearly 20 years since the bulk were removed, the others have been given fair warning.
    *Abolishing the Lords Spiritual in such a fashion works for me - no objection to a Peerage to a few, but automatic?
    *I'd go further - councillors are excluded from office if they do not attend at least one meeting in 6 months unless granted an exemption eg for illness. Given the HoL is much more nationally important, stricter rules should be in place - we want people who would not necessarily stand for election and all the pressures of that, but you need to show willing and show up a certain amount. If you don't or cannot, you should be excluded, not merely encouraged to resign. You can keep the title though, if all they want is the gong.
    *Probably the most likely way to get some agreement I guess.
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045
    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Love this!

    The Canadian women's fencing uniform is wonderfully terrifying and sci-fi. https://t.co/i7IQ6JpHEK
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
    That's nothing to do with the commons, but Labour party machinations. Unless your reform would be to abolish the Labour party...
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: Corbyn rules out 2nd referendum or election attempt to reverse Brexit – interview with @paulwaugh https://t.co/z4H8skkFKN

    I'm beginning to worry I am coming to understand Corbyn, since I always thought that would be the approach Labour under him would take. Particularly with the election likely to be after the article 50 declaration, there's little to be gained and a lot to risk by doing otherwise, no matter how pro-EU the party membership may be.

    That said I enjoy taking summaries of such a position and extrapolating it to other, ridiculous, scenarios. 'You have to respect the decision people made', they say, and we shouldn't seek to reverse that, but what about you seeking to oppose a government that was elected?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    It's a fair warning. Does murali_s think once illegal immigrants have entered the country they should just get a free ride? There are legal channels for a reason...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Legal aid pays that - but administering the legal aid? A thick, badly written file of evidence doesn't just write itself... Building cost, security, police time... It is startling the ways costs mount up. The costs you see are just the visible portion of the iceberg. Those office blocks of civil servants don't pay for themselves...

    Divy up the costs of the justice system per case and you will see what I mean.
    So far I seem to have found that we are spending 17.1 billion on the criminal justice system

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The-Criminal-Justice-system-landscape-review-summary1.pdf

    from here

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/471625/costs-per-place.pdf

    prison is

    £2,804,394,939, so take that off

    from

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/533097/criminal-court-statistics-jan-mar-2016.pdf

    page 8 ....

    we have 304,300 magistrates court cases and 46,500 in Crown court ?? Crudely add that together (yes, I know, all cases start in the magistrates court)

    So we end up with 40K per case.

    OK - what did I do wrong?
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,045
    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    Your opinion. Most compassionate and civilised people understand that the Aussie approach is thoroughly despicable. Ask Human Rights Watch and the like.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,941
    RobD said:

    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    It's a fair warning. Does murali_s think once illegal immigrants have entered the country they should just get a free ride? There are legal channels for a reason...
    And what the people really don't like is when those who follow the process get knocked back, while those who ignore the rules and just turn up in a boat have the red carpet rolled out for them.

    There was a serious problem with thousands of deaths a year on unseaworthy and overloaded boats trying to get from Asia to Australia - the zero tolerance policy of the Aussies is literally saving thousands of lives a year.
  • Options
    JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
    That's nothing to do with the commons, but Labour party machinations. Unless your reform would be to abolish the Labour party...
    My point is that by having an unelected Lords, a situation that would never have been anticipated has less serious consequences than a constitutionally 'neat' setup.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
    That's nothing to do with the commons, but Labour party machinations. Unless your reform would be to abolish the Labour party...
    My point is that by having an unelected Lords, a situation that would never have been anticipated has less serious consequences than a constitutionally 'neat' setup.
    So we should have an unelected commons then? I can't see what reform you are proposing that would make the PLP get along with their leader. Reforming Labour's leadership voting system, perhaps, but not a reform of the commons.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ooh

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/donald-trump-ups-game-hires-firm-behind-brexit-win/#st_refDomain=&st_refQuery=

    "Cambridge Analytica is a marketing firm that specializes going after first-time voters and those who feel left out of the process – the typical Trump supporter.
    The Wrap reported:

    Donald Trump and his team have upped their game to win the race for the White House by hiring the company that got the Brexit message to millions, resulting in the split of Great Britain from the European Union.

    Cambridge Analytica is a marketing film that targets voters (and potential donors) based on their unconscious psychological biases.

    The strategic communications company also worked with former GOP candidates Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and the “Leave.EU” campaign in the United Kingdom. According to the Daily Beast, Cambridge Analytica “went after first-time voters and those who felt left out of the political process, the kinds of people that Trump was successful bringing to the polls in primary elections.”
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    murali_s said:

    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    Your opinion. Most compassionate and civilised people understand that the Aussie approach is thoroughly despicable. Ask Human Rights Watch and the like.
    You mean the same Human Rights Watch that is trying to get non-state actors out of coverage of the laws of war? Apparently they think it is unfair to demand that terrorists don't terrorise people....
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    Following on from the last thread on prisons.

    They work and are cost effective - even when only used on the level of preventing crime.

    Commonly, the anti-prison advocates state that it costs 30K to lock someone up for a year - then contrast that with the petty amounts stolen etc.

    In fact, the cost of crime is vastly more than the 20 quid someone gets for a stolen car stereo or whatever. Even a simple magistrates court case - say a basic theft - will cost 5 figures... lawyers, police time, witness time, effects on victims etc.

    So, locking up the habitual criminals saves a fortune. Nearly all the crime that affects people in an every day way is done by serial offenders.

    One of the reasons for the big drop in crime was sneaking through the coalition (under the Lib Dems noses) the following measure - stopping bail for those caught committing crimes *while on bail*. Previously, the habituals would be caught, bailed, caught, bailed etc. Some of them achieved double digit levels of bail, previously.

    While I agree with your premise (that we should prevent crime even if it is net negative in near term costs) I don't believe for a second that a simple magistrate case costs anything like £10k. Legal aid pays something like £300 for whole day defences, the prosecution isn't paid much more, and magistrates get next to nothing
    Bet you they load all the overhead of the court system into that. The star that always amazes me is that TV licensing is over 10% of cases but (i think) 2% of resources because they process them in batches. Magistrates hate those days :)
  • Options
    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
    That's nothing to do with the commons, but Labour party machinations. Unless your reform would be to abolish the Labour party...
    My point is that by having an unelected Lords, a situation that would never have been anticipated has less serious consequences than a constitutionally 'neat' setup.
    So we should have an unelected commons then? I can't see what reform you are proposing that would make the PLP get along with their leader. Reforming Labour's leadership voting system, perhaps, but not a reform of the commons.
    We're all in agreement that we should have a wholly elected House of Lords, elected under AV?
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    murali_s said:

    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    Your opinion. Most compassionate and civilised people understand that the Aussie approach is thoroughly despicable. Ask Human Rights Watch and the like.
    Yes it is my opinion. I have no interest in jokers like Human Rights Watch or in preening clowns who describe themselves as 'civilised' and 'compassionate' compared to other people.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    RobD said:

    JonathanD said:

    kle4 said:

    Not sure why it will have taken this outrage to spark an overhaul. Perhaps this time the Lords will finally be properly reformed in a democratic way, although since so many previous attempts at various reforms have been begun with grand intent and then fall away for all sorts of reasons, I'll believe it when I see it.
    At the moment its the House of Commons that is disfunctional rather than the Lords which is getting on with doing its job quite competently. May really should focus on the important rather than being diverted by nonsense.
    Some examples to back up your claim? I wouldn't argue that one was worse than the other...
    Labour as an opposition or even scrutiniser of legislation has fallen apart in the Commons. It is only in the Lords that legislation is being properly tested. It's the idiosyncratic, slightly shambolic UK unwritten constitution that allows the country to navigate constitutional difficulties with relative ease.
    That's nothing to do with the commons, but Labour party machinations. Unless your reform would be to abolish the Labour party...
    My point is that by having an unelected Lords, a situation that would never have been anticipated has less serious consequences than a constitutionally 'neat' setup.
    So we should have an unelected commons then? I can't see what reform you are proposing that would make the PLP get along with their leader. Reforming Labour's leadership voting system, perhaps, but not a reform of the commons.
    We're all in agreement that we should have a wholly elected House of Lords, elected under AV?
    Na. How about a wholly hereditary chamber (capped at say 650), whose members are elected by AV from the wider pool of hereditaries.

    :D
  • Options
    Not a good front page of The Sunday Times for Corbyn or the soon to be Lady Chakrabarti
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    It's a fair warning. Does murali_s think once illegal immigrants have entered the country they should just get a free ride? There are legal channels for a reason...
    And what the people really don't like is when those who follow the process get knocked back, while those who ignore the rules and just turn up in a boat have the red carpet rolled out for them.

    There was a serious problem with thousands of deaths a year on unseaworthy and overloaded boats trying to get from Asia to Australia - the zero tolerance policy of the Aussies is literally saving thousands of lives a year.
    And what could be more compassionate than that?
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36998747

    Sad end to that very weird tale about the Iranian nuclear scientist who defected to the US/claimed to have been kidnapped and drugged by the US (depending on which of several very odd videos he put out) and went back to Iran to a huge public celebration as a hero (much to the humiliation of the US) before vanishing again, imprisoned at a military facility, contact with family ending .... and now turning up dead, hanged.

    I recall Y0kel posting about this at the time the weird videos went and out and later when he went back. Can't remember what his opinion about most likely outcome was.

    Edward Snowden now seems to have entered "expendable" territory and is making a bit of a mug of himself protesting Putin's violations of free and private communications online. Going from America to Russia if state coercion and control of the internet is your bugbear always stank of "frying pan to fire". Wonder if he will do himself a favour and shut up.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,168
    edited August 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    In terms of gdp per capita all those nations will be ahead, the UK is projected to have a gdp per capita of $79,721, Germany $86,019, France $71,698, to Nigeria's $17,806, Mexico's $51,663, Brazil's $39,700 and Russia's $61,727. However while the figures may be wrong is it that surprising the most populous nations in the world will also be the nations with the largest economies? Especially now Marxism has largely collapsed as an influence in the developing world.
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    MTimT said:
    Yeap. Just another mental ill man known locally as Dave with no obvious nterrorist motive.
    Are you sure you meant to reply to this post rather than @MarkHopkins post at 9:50 UK time (showing on mine as beach time so it's a guess)
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Out of the top 10.

    The top 10 is

    1 China
    2 India
    3 USA
    4 Indonesia
    5 Brazil
    6 Mexico
    7 Japan
    8 Russia
    9 Nigeria
    10 Germany
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html


    The UK comes in 11th, just ahead of Saudi Arabia and France
    http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/economy/the-world-in-2050.html

    It's crap.

    Really, it's crap

    Mexico has rubbish demographics, dysfunctional politics, and little industry outside its declining energy business. It will not be sixth in the world.

    Nigeria is also utterly dependent on oil exports. It won't be ahead of the UK. Or France. Or Italy.

    Brazil. Lovely country. Economy totally dependent on the export of commodities too.

    Russia. Declining population. Exports of products other than oil and gas are in decline. Exports of non commodity products are less than a third of Belgium's. And falling.

    Japan. Demographic disaster zone.

    I'd be happy to bet that the UK, Germany and even France will be bigger economies than Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil and Russia in 2050.
    I thought due to demographics even Germany was forecast to decline below the UK some point in the mid 2030s.
    Their population is now growing again.
    Not optimal growth of easy to integrate hard working types though. :wink:
    A strange thing to say. In general, refugees from war zones tend to be the brightest and most rational of the population. The thick ones don't have the gumption to flee, while the nutters will stay and fight to the end. While Germany currently has a challenge to integrate its new inhabitants, it is likely to reap rewards in the long term.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/36998747

    Sad end to that very weird tale about the Iranian nuclear scientist who defected to the US/claimed to have been kidnapped and drugged by the US (depending on which of several very odd videos he put out) and went back to Iran to a huge public celebration as a hero (much to the humiliation of the US) before vanishing again, imprisoned at a military facility, contact with family ending .... and now turning up dead, hanged.

    I recall Y0kel posting about this at the time the weird videos went and out and later when he went back. Can't remember what his opinion about most likely outcome was.

    Edward Snowden now seems to have entered "expendable" territory and is making a bit of a mug of himself protesting Putin's violations of free and private communications online. Going from America to Russia if state coercion and control of the internet is your bugbear always stank of "frying pan to fire". Wonder if he will do himself a favour and shut up.

    Reminds me of the story of a Soviet defector (a colonel?) who changed his mind, went back, made a press conference denouncing the US. And then ended badly....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,168
    edited August 2016
    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,593
    runnymede said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    runnymede said:

    murali_s said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    We should learn something here

    How to stop the boats - Australian style..... https://t.co/w7qnmUqX6R

    I bloody well hope not. We are better than this...
    The Aussies have got it right
    It's a fair warning. Does murali_s think once illegal immigrants have entered the country they should just get a free ride? There are legal channels for a reason...
    And what the people really don't like is when those who follow the process get knocked back, while those who ignore the rules and just turn up in a boat have the red carpet rolled out for them.

    There was a serious problem with thousands of deaths a year on unseaworthy and overloaded boats trying to get from Asia to Australia - the zero tolerance policy of the Aussies is literally saving thousands of lives a year.
    And what could be more compassionate than that?
    You have no soul. Hundreds of salt water crocodiles have been deprived of their favourite lunch/dinner/breakfast. Have you no heart?

    For those who don't get the joke - the people smugglers would dump their cargos (when they actually made it to land) in the most remote place they could find.

    Wandering around Australia's tropical coast is not something even experts do lightly. You need to know what you are doing and be well equipped. Otherwise you are lunch
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Not a good front page of The Sunday Times for Corbyn or the soon to be Lady Chakrabarti

    @STJamesl: Anyone else think it's odd that Corbyns office are answering questions for Shami Chakrabarti about her "independent" anti-Semitism inquiry?
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @RobD

    'The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.'


    What's wrong with keeping the current status quo with 300 elected representatives or whatever you want to call them. Some specialist non elected representatives also OK but without voting rights.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    john_zims said:

    @RobD

    'The problem with having a second elected chamber is the issue of primacy. They will both suppose to be the voice of the people.'


    What's wrong with keeping the current status quo with 300 elected representatives or whatever you want to call them. Some specialist non elected representatives also OK but without voting rights.

    Because then both chambers will be elected.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    It has too much baggage.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    It has too much baggage.
    I doubt it will change.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    It has too much baggage.
    Bring back the Levellers, and the Whigs.
  • Options
    john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited August 2016
    @murali_s

    'Your opinion. Most compassionate and civilised people understand that the Aussie approach is thoroughly despicable. Ask Human Rights Watch and the like.'

    Bollocks, it's what the Australian people in a 'civilised' country want, if the human rights brigade want to it change let them get elected first,otherwise just feck off.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,168
    edited August 2016
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    The name could be kept of course but it reflects the rightwing of the Tories splitting off to join Carswellite UKIP in the Freedom Party or Woolfeite UKIP in the Patriots Party. Labour will also split, with the Corbynites in the Solidarity Party (perhaps with the Greens eventually too) while moderate Labour joins with the LDs in the Progressive Party
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,054

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    It has too much baggage.
    Bring back the Levellers, and the Whigs.
    Appropriate, since the name Tory comes from the time of the Levellers.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,990
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    Trump staging a recovery in betting markets, my view:

    There has been a stabilization of Hillary's lead at around 5 points in my daily tracking average since Wednesday, and there is a picture emerging that Trump's campaign actually exists, so there is some good news for him that warrants that small recovery.


    Smith crashing again in betting markets, my view:

    I don't know why, the picture hasn't changed, Smith is a goner as usual but only now has the market found out about it ?

    Last info I had was Corbyn beating Smith by 60-25 two weeks ago by someone working at Smith's phonebanks, since then I can only imagine it's been down hill for Smith especially after a pretty bad performance in the debate.

    Anyway, it was always a mystery for me as to why was Smith regarded that high in the past on the markets.

    Just one election to go then until the possible death of Labour. Tim Montgomerie produced a projection for a realignment today which looks very possible
    https://twitter.com/montie/status/761940870568509441
    What's wrong with the name "Conservatives"?
    The name could be kept of course but it reflects the rightwing of the Tories splitting off to join Carswellite UKIP in the Freedom Party or Woolfeite UKIP in the Patriots Party. Labour will also split, with the Corbynites in the Solidarity Party (perhaps with the Greens eventually too) while moderate Labour joins with the LDs in the Progressive Party
    It just won't happen because of FPTP.
This discussion has been closed.