politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hills make it odds-on that UKIP won’t have a single MP after t

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hills make it odds-on that UKIP won’t have a single MP after the next election

William Hill UKIP seats after next General ElectionNONE 10/11ONE 13/82+ 7/2

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

1 - like Kipper MPs.

Paristonda

Second!

GIN1138

Third like Diane James

Paristonda

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

SandyRentool

Are UKIP now officially the Nutty Boys?

rogerh

Slight narrowing of odds in Richmond .Zac moves from 1/3 to 4/11.Lib Dems from 9/4 to 2/1

FF43

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

But is it "government policy" and therefore deniable running commentary or is it David Davis pushing his own contested agenda?

kle4

FPTP is rough. Let's see how Brexit strategies go, as UKIP need the fire of anger to inspire success.

kle4

What's with the picture? They look like ghosts or holograms.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

kle4

Bloke at work was saying the article 127 challenge may be more significant than the article 50 one in the end. As I'd never heard of article 127 until today, I could not say one way or another. Seems like it has potential to cause more trouble, negotiation wise though.

nielh

The 7/2 odds on more than 2 seats looks like good value. There will obviously be a 'challenger' coming to Labour assuming everything stays as it is, but the question is whether that would be UKIP or a new political party.

kle4

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.

Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.

It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.

The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.

Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.

Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.

Yawn.

Try to engage with other people

We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.

In the sense of how we interact with it as an outsider, its direction of travel is still of itnerest, though of course now purely a matter for them.

AlastairMeeks

Douglas Carswell seems onboard with the new leader. I won't be betting on zero for now. The 7/2 on 2+ looks a very fair bet in these uncertain times.

chestnut

Isn't Canada++++ the obvious aspiration?

We are considerably more important as a trading destination and partner to the EU than Canada is so CETA is the new bottom line on goods instead of the referendum bottom line of WTO.

The one uncertainty is how awkward we will choose to be on goods if they are on services.

It will be very awkward for any european politician to sell their electorate 'hard Brexit' on services if the consequence is loss of 'goods' jobs in Germany, France, Ireland, Spain etc.

It's all about how they manage the fudge and public relations now.

Re-defining the meaning and qualifying criteria for acceptable Free Movement is clearly something the important players are keen on.

Barnesian

kle4 said:

What's with the picture? They look like ghosts or holograms.

or revenants

kle4

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.

Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.

It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.

The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.

Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.

Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.

Yawn.

Try to engage with other people

We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.

In the sense of how we interact with it as an outsider, its direction of travel is still of itnerest, though of course now purely a matter for them.

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

"Shortlist" of 16 for SPOTY about to be revealed on The One Show.

Is anybody seriously betting against Andy Murray?

Deserves it, but he'll have plenty of chances.

FF43

kle4 said:

Bloke at work was saying the article 127 challenge may be more significant than the article 50 one in the end. As I'd never heard of article 127 until today, I could not say one way or another. Seems like it has potential to cause more trouble, negotiation wise though.

I don't see that working. A reminder of Article 50 text:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.


To me that's clear. All treaties between the leaving state and the EU lapse on exit unless explicitly renewed in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Sunil_Prasannan

What odds the LibDems don't have any MPs after the next election?

kle4

chestnut said:

It will be very awkward for any european politician to sell their electorate 'hard Brexit' on services if the consequence is loss of 'goods' jobs in Germany, France, Ireland, Spain etc.

It's all about how they manage the fudge and public relations now.

Twas ever thus. I should think it would depend on how much we need to be seen to have done poorly, in their eyes, to discourage the risk of contagion, and how much cost they are willing to bear for that message, since any cost will be down the line and probably managable.

nielh

Labour cannot fight off UKIP or another party from the right unless it radically changes its position on immigration and on terrorism. In the long terms it is dead outside London and college towns in its current guise.

Richard_Tyndall

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

williamglenn

Richard_Tyndall said:

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

To symbolise the downfall of Brexit?

Sunil_Prasannan

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

The ANC are still around 20 years after Apartheid.
The Congress Party are still around nearly 70 years after Indian independence.

kle4

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

I think it does have a point, currently. As Nuttall said, it's to hold the government's feet to the fire on Brexit. Not to make sure it happens - the Tories are committed to that now and would rupture if they hinted otherwise, and Labour are hardly going to stick their necks out against it either - but to push for the best kind of Brexit, in consultation with like minded Tories. That Brexit of any kind may be taken away remains an unlikely bogeyman, but those wanting a harder deal, a more decisive split, are not without reason fearing others want to stop that, even if they cannot or do not want to stop Brexit itself.

Once Brexit strategy is set and/or we achieve it, whatever deal we get, then their purpose is less clear.

dodrade

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

To make sure Brexit actually happens, and not just in name only.

kle4

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

The ANC are still around 20 years after Apartheid.
The Congress Party are still around nearly 70 years after Indian independence.

What function will UKIP serve in 4 years though? Unlike those two, they do not have much chance of government in recent times. I welcome them to provide an alternative, and wish them success, but what's their role - it isn't to safeguard Brexit, since it'll be Tories or Laboru doing that, one way or another.

FF43

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

Brexit is, we assume, a done deal. But it won't resolve anything - in fact it complicates everything - as long as the EU exists and the UK's dominant foreign policy question is its relationship with it. There will be elements in all the main parties as well business and other groups who will be looking to integrate more with the EU. If so, others, including possibly UKIP, will resist those moves.

Richard_Tyndall

Williamglen

I answered your question at the end of the last thread with a simple 'Yes'. In fact thinking about it the answer should have been 'yes and no'. Sorry about that.

To explain. I would like to see the challenge succeed in its aim of keeping us in the EEA but I think it will fail for the reason it should fail. The EEA treaty is clear. Members have to be either a member of the EU or a member of EFTA. I have long argued on here that a move from the EU to EFTA would overcome this obstacle but it seems to me that the challenge is trying to say we should remain members of the EEA even if we are outside either the EU or EFTA. This will put us outside all the structures designed for the working of the EEA by non EU members. It is both impractical and filled with danger of placing us back under the control of the ECJ.

So I want us to remain inside the EEA but only as a member of EFTA where we have safeguards.

nielh

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

I think we would be a mistake to write UKIP off. The nature of Brexit is such that it will involve some sort of compromise and therefore in the eyes of some at least, betrayal. This sense of betrayal, coupled with increasingly difficult economic circumstances is a fertile political ground for a right wing populist party. In the short term though they can shape themselves as the party of pure Brexit, and probably be quite successful, although would still not necessarily translate in to seats under the FPTP system.

The greater problem they face is resolving its internal contradictions: It was always a coalition of different interests, libertarians and social conservatives. Whether Mr Nuttall is up to this task remains to be seen.

GIN1138

Sunil_Prasannan said:

What odds the LibDems don't have any MPs after the next election?

Into Martin Day territory there!

Tim_B

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

Douglas Carswell seems onboard with the new leader. I won't be betting on zero for now. The 7/2 on 2+ looks a very fair bet in these uncertain times.

Carswell could lose his seat and 2+ still be a winner. As we've seen in the US, Arizona is now a swing state whereas Virginia isn't.

UKIP could even go backwards nationally, and still win Hartlepool and one of the Stoke seats. Its not how many votes you get under fptp, it is where you get them.

AnneJGP

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

During the process of Brexit it may morph into a different kind of party to meet new needs. It may well shed a lot of present members/supporters but gain others.

There certainly seems to be a gap in the market for a Not-Labour alternative to the Conservatives.

IMHO it depends on several things, e.g:
* how many of the present activists are interested in career politics rather than merely getting the UK out of the EU;
* whether they are able to identify the 'transferrables' that UKIP has developed;
* whether they are able to separate out the different strands of the UKIP package;
* understand which strands have served their purpose & should be ditched;
* which strands could form a foundation for the party going forward;
* and then find a way to bring it about!

(Good evening, everybody)

TOPPING

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

TOPPING said:

This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.

Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.

It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.

The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.

Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.

Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.

Yawn.

Try to engage with other people

We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.

In the sense of how we interact with it as an outsider, its direction of travel is still of itnerest, though of course now purely a matter for them.

Yes. We can idly wonder what Tonga's direction of travel is but it doesn't really matter apart from what they suggest to us over the negotiating table is.

Leedsprinter

nielh said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

I think we would be a mistake to write UKIP off. The nature of Brexit is such that it will involve some sort of compromise and therefore in the eyes of some at least, betrayal. This sense of betrayal, coupled with increasingly difficult economic circumstances is a fertile political ground for a right wing populist party. In the short term though they can shape themselves as the party of pure Brexit, and probably be quite successful, although would still not necessarily translate in to seats under the FPTP system.

The greater problem they face is resolving its internal contradictions: It was always a coalition of different interests, libertarians and social conservatives. Whether Mr Nuttall is up to this task remains to be seen.

That's the big problem. They are/were united when focussed on Brexit. Can they hang together ow they've won? I'm certain there is a wide open field in Northern Labour seats for a protest party for disillusioned Labour voters who can't bring themselves to vote Tory. But are the members ready to re-form the party to take advantage? I doubt it. Prospect of government doesn't matter, the LibDems have survived without it.

TOPPING

fpt

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

<

And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).

It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).

No we are not. We remain under EU jurisdiction as long as we remain members. Once we leave the EU we are no longer allowed to be a member of the patent organisation as it is currently defined. Either the way it is organised will change or we will leave - not because we necessarily want to but because we will be in breach of the basic terms of membership as it is currently constrained.

It is for such matters that the word fudge was invented.

It is hugely likely not to say desirable that we will remain part of the patent organisation. The way it is organised will likely change and will accommodate us as a non-EU member but will retain the hierarchical structure ie ECJ at the top (according to @Southam). So we will have continued to give up a teensy weensy bit of sovereignty (patents, eh? Who cares? Katie Price it is not).

Would that be to your liking? Or would you prefer the UK wholly out of the patent organisation as our mere presence in it would offend your notion of sovereignty?

BigRich

On the subject being talked about on the previous thread:

Dan Hannan making the moral case for Free trade, In his usual pashonat and eloquent style, but this time given the time to fully answer questions;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7KuxDi-azo

What a pity he is not running the government.

Andrew

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

.... and that's just my wife's shopping.

chestnut

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

As others mentioned in the previous thread, UKIP's future depends on Brexit.

I tend to think we (and the EU) will do it sensibly.

The 'real' EU is the eurozone. We Brexited in spirit, if not in body, a long time ago. We are not alone.

DavidL

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Tim_B

Andrew said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

.... and that's just my wife's shopping.

Presumably she has Prime, to ease the burden

Tim_B

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Doubt it - they seem to be plowing it all back into the business.

Tim_B

We're expecting our first rain in 45 days this evening. Playing golf the other day, we actually broke tees as the ground was too hard to insert them. Across the state line in Alabama they've not had rain in 2 months.

nielh

Leedsprinter said:

nielh said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

I think we would be a mistake to write UKIP off. The nature of Brexit is such that it will involve some sort of compromise and therefore in the eyes of some at least, betrayal. This sense of betrayal, coupled with increasingly difficult economic circumstances is a fertile political ground for a right wing populist party. In the short term though they can shape themselves as the party of pure Brexit, and probably be quite successful, although would still not necessarily translate in to seats under the FPTP system.

The greater problem they face is resolving its internal contradictions: It was always a coalition of different interests, libertarians and social conservatives. Whether Mr Nuttall is up to this task remains to be seen.

That's the big problem. They are/were united when focussed on Brexit. Can they hang together ow they've won? I'm certain there is a wide open field in Northern Labour seats for a protest party for disillusioned Labour voters who can't bring themselves to vote Tory. But are the members ready to re-form the party to take advantage? I doubt it. Prospect of government doesn't matter, the LibDems have survived without it.

Nuttall is probably their best hope, its hard to see how Suzanne evans or Diane Jones were going to suddenly appeal to the Labour heartlands. But its certainly hard to see how the membership would really follow him .
UKIP are either going to win big, or simply dissipate in to nothing. The 7/2 odds are representative of the possibility of UKIP simply holding it together for the next four years. Its probably a fair bet, as others have said, all in all.

nunu

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Tim_B

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

They are providing good service and selection at a good price - why would the 'left' care whether they make a profit or decide to invest in the business?

AnneJGP

Andrew said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

.... and that's just my wife's shopping.

That must require a delivery service second only to Father Christmas & his reindeer.

Monksfield

FF43 said:

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

But is it "government policy" and therefore deniable running commentary or is it David Davis pushing his own contested agenda?

Government trolling the Remoanians

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Would that be General Petraeus who was sacked for insecure handling of state secrets?

Lock him up!

Monksfield

Sunil_Prasannan said:

What odds the LibDems don't have any MPs after the next election?

Pretty long Dr P. They'll be picking a few back up from the Tories I suspect.

nielh

http://uk.businessinsider.com/ukip-founder-alan-sked-the-party-should-dissolve-disappear-2016-7

"The problem with UKIP isn't just personalities. The problem is that it is completely disorganised. Farage ran it on the Fuhrer principle … He just made up policy on the hoof and anybody who disagreed with him, no matter what position they had, was just demoted, or kicked out. The party has got no real constitutional structure. It’s also got no proper research department or policy formulation. So, it doesn't really have any philosophy or policy.
And UKIP’s candidates ... They have got no way of vetting candidates, so you get the dregs of the earth. I think at the last election you had people who had formally been accused of rape, murder, and one of its candidates was known to be circulating neo-Nazi propaganda on the internet. I mean you couldn’t make it up."

Leedsprinter

nielh said:

Leedsprinter said:

nielh said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Kind of on topic.

I am considering writing a thread header based on the simple question;

'What, now, is the point of UKIP?'.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. My simple answer is, it has none. But I am interested in what others think.

I think we would be a mistake to write UKIP off. The nature of Brexit is such that it will involve some sort of compromise and therefore in the eyes of some at least, betrayal. This sense of betrayal, coupled with increasingly difficult economic circumstances is a fertile political ground for a right wing populist party. In the short term though they can shape themselves as the party of pure Brexit, and probably be quite successful, although would still not necessarily translate in to seats under the FPTP system.

The greater problem they face is resolving its internal contradictions: It was always a coalition of different interests, libertarians and social conservatives. Whether Mr Nuttall is up to this task remains to be seen.

That's the big problem. They are/were united when focussed on Brexit. Can they hang together ow they've won? I'm certain there is a wide open field in Northern Labour seats for a protest party for disillusioned Labour voters who can't bring themselves to vote Tory. But are the members ready to re-form the party to take advantage? I doubt it. Prospect of government doesn't matter, the LibDems have survived without it.

Nuttall is probably their best hope, its hard to see how Suzanne evans or Diane Jones were going to suddenly appeal to the Labour heartlands. But its certainly hard to see how the membership would really follow him .
UKIP are either going to win big, or simply dissipate in to nothing. The 7/2 odds are representative of the possibility of UKIP simply holding it together for the next four years. Its probably a fair bet, as others have said, all in all.

By the way, Southern commentators talk of him being a Northerner, attractive to Northern voters. To us Yorkshiremen, he's a scouser! Nowt against him, I like him, but being a scouser is an obsacle rather than a plus. I'm afraid scousers are instinctively seen as a bit fly.

TCPoliticalBetting

foxinsoxuk said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Would that be General Petraeus who was sacked for insecure handling of state secrets?

Lock him up!

Petraeus sacked and Clinton....

DavidL

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Monksfield

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Dealing with globalisation is as much a problem for the right as it is for the left. Neither seems to have a plan at the moment. The way multinationals are being cosseted and featherbedded whilst small businesses are being wrung out is an absolute scandal.

Pulpstar

Tim_B said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

They are providing good service and selection at a good price - why would the 'left' care whether they make a profit or decide to invest in the business?

So long as he is investing his spare readies into rockets that is fine by me. Just did a bit of christmas shopping there !

foxinsoxuk

TCPoliticalBetting said:

foxinsoxuk said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Would that be General Petraeus who was sacked for insecure handling of state secrets?

Lock him up!

Petraeus sacked and Clinton....

I think that unlike Petraeus, the FBI could not find enough evidence for a charge against Clinton.

An ideal SoS candidate for the not at all hypocritical Trumpster.

AndyJS

Seems reasonable to assume UKIP will either win zero or 10+ seats at the next election. I can't see them winning just 1 or 2.

DavidL

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Dealing with globalisation is as much a problem for the right as it is for the left. Neither seems to have a plan at the moment. The way multinationals are being cosseted and featherbedded whilst small businesses are being wrung out is an absolute scandal.

Agreed. I think we have to rethink how we tax multinationals. Osborne's Google tax was an interesting way forward but fundamentally I think we need a turnover type tax (not VAT which is simply dumped on the end consumer) to ensure that those who make money in the U.K. pay tax in the U.K. on those profits, wherever their accountants like to pretend the profit is actually made.

kle4

Winning a bet on UKIP seats at the GE entirely wiped out my losses at being so woeful at predictions elsewhere (I do play for small stakes!). I think it's too early to take a guess right now, but if pressed I would say 0 is more likely than making a breakthrough in many seats.

DavidL

kle4 said:

Winning a bet on UKIP seats at the GE entirely wiped out my losses at being so woeful at predictions elsewhere (I do play for small stakes!). I think it's too early to take a guess right now, but if pressed I would say 0 is more likely than making a breakthrough in many seats.

I would agree with that but odds on betting this far out is not particularly attractive.

NickPalmer

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Dealing with globalisation is as much a problem for the right as it is for the left. Neither seems to have a plan at the moment. The way multinationals are being cosseted and featherbedded whilst small businesses are being wrung out is an absolute scandal.

I agree with both of you. It's a problem for every variety of national government, which is why we need more multinational cooperation like...oh. But if thst's not the way forward then DavidL's VAT approach may be the least evil.

The_Apocalypse

@nunu I found the video on the history of the Democrats that you posted in the previous thread really interesting. This is another great video from vox I've just watched as well: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Dealing with globalisation is as much a problem for the right as it is for the left. Neither seems to have a plan at the moment. The way multinationals are being cosseted and featherbedded whilst small businesses are being wrung out is an absolute scandal.

Agreed. I think we have to rethink how we tax multinationals. Osborne's Google tax was an interesting way forward but fundamentally I think we need a turnover type tax (not VAT which is simply dumped on the end consumer) to ensure that those who make money in the U.K. pay tax in the U.K. on those profits, wherever their accountants like to pretend the profit is actually made.

I didn't get the distinction there - how would a turnover tax not be passed onto the consumer (that's what dumped on means?) in the way that VAT is?

rcs1000

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

MTimT

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

Saltire

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

justin124

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

4 years away? Actually a mere 3 years and 5 months now!

nunu

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Sorry, it was a rhetorical question. I think there should be a limit on how much losses you are allowed to offset against future profits to lower your taxes. Maybe a diminishing share of a companies losses. Or a limit like about £100million maximum within 50 years.

Tissue_Price

AndyJS said:

Seems reasonable to assume UKIP will either win zero or 10+ seats at the next election. I can't see them winning just 1 or 2.

Said people in 2013

But yes, the 7/2 looks the value and the 10/11 reasonable. 13/8 is a rancid price.

nunu

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

OldKingCole

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Not paying taxes evidently was regarded as 'smart'.

Pulpstar

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

RobD

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

Pulpstar

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

I'll stick it into some UK property for them, they can even get their money back once I'm gone..

Pulpstar

OldKingCole said:

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Not paying taxes evidently was regarded as 'smart'.

There was a pivot away from the GOP amongst higher educated, but it got swamped by the thickies less well educated.

MTimT

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Obamacare is a huge issue. My premiums are going up (up, not total) $6000 next year (from $1200 pcm to $1700) AND the total limit of out of pocket expenses is going up $5000. So if we max out (likely, wife is still in chemo) that will add an extra $11,000 to our medical bills. I.e., we'll have to pay $35,000 for medical costs out of pocket.

At the same time, my wife's reimbursements as an anaesthetist (in British English - anesthesiologist to a Yank, as an anesthetist is a nurse) are going down - both those paid by Medicare/Medicaid and those reimbursed by insurance. For some Medicare cases, she gets paid $31!! That's barely the gas money to get herself there and back (she does vacation relief coverage). The only option to preserve income, unacceptable to most, is to refuse insured and (especially) MediCare/Aid patients and only provide service for cash.

So, a huge chunk of those on the supply side of medicine who are not hospital employees are looking for a major redo of Obamacare. Hillary had promised to make the situation even worse.

Another huge chunk of the middle class who are self-employed and have to pay their own insurance premiums but are 'too rich' to be subsidized are facing this kind of price hike for their health insurance. The only party offering to fix Obamacare is the GOP, and the GOP only have a chance of doing that if they control all three levers of government, which they now do.

So, IMO, the litmus for Trump and the GOP in 2018 will be progress on Obamacare.

For the rest, I am not sure. Repatriating jobs? Where will those white blue collar workers go? Back to an increasingly socialist, ethnic and gay/lesbian party who despises them? Just don't see it happening. They'll either stay with the GOP or not vote. They are lost to the Dems for at least a decade or two.

kjohnw

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

She is still appealing in PA and a recount still happening in WI (though not hand count) if she can delay things so the December 13 deadline missed the electoral votes can be voided unless congress allows them to be included late. Wonder if that was her game plan all along to get the ECV disallowed in these key states through late filing

RobD

kjohnw said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

She is still appealing in PA and a recount still happening in WI (though not hand count) if she can delay things so the December 13 deadline missed the electoral votes can be voided unless congress allows them to be included late. Wonder if that was her game plan all along to get the ECV disallowed in these key states through late filing

Can that actually happen?

Pulpstar

kjohnw said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

She is still appealing in PA and a recount still happening in WI (though not hand count) if she can delay things so the December 13 deadline missed the electoral votes can be voided unless congress allows them to be included late. Wonder if that was her game plan all along to get the ECV disallowed in these key states through late filing

The PA request will be refused (The PA rules are very clear on what needs to happen and she hasn't made the necessary deadlines). And WI have decided on a method that will allow them to get done before Dec 13th.

nunu

MTimT said:

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Obamacare is a huge issue. My premiums are going up (up, not total) $6000 next year (from $1200 pcm to $1700) AND the total limit of out of pocket expenses is going up $5000. So if we max out (likely, wife is still in chemo) that will add an extra $11,000 to our medical bills. I.e., we'll have to pay $35,000 for medical costs out of pocket.

At the same time, my wife's reimbursements as an anaesthetist (in British English - anesthesiologist to a Yank, as an anesthetist is a nurse) are going down - both those paid by Medicare/Medicaid and those reimbursed by insurance. For some Medicare cases, she gets paid $31!! That's barely the gas money to get herself there and back (she does vacation relief coverage). The only option to preserve income, unacceptable to most, is to refuse insured and (especially) MediCare/Aid patients and only provide service for cash.

So, a huge chunk of those on the supply side of medicine who are not hospital employees are looking for a major redo of Obamacare. Hillary had promised to make the situation even worse.

Another huge chunk of the middle class who are self-employed and have to pay their own insurance premiums but are 'too rich' to be subsidized are facing this kind of price hike for their health insurance. The only party offering to fix Obamacare is the GOP, and the GOP only have a chance of doing that if they control all three levers of government, which they now do.

So, IMO, the litmus for Trump and the GOP in 2018 will be progress on Obamacare.

For the rest, I am not sure. Repatriating jobs? Where will those white blue collar workers go? Back to an increasingly socialist, ethnic and gay/lesbian party who despises them? Just don't see it happening. They'll either stay with the GOP or not vote. They are lost to the Dems for at least a decade or two.

I'm sorry to hear your wife is in chemo. I hope she gets better soon.

kjohnw

Pulpstar said:

kjohnw said:

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

Since Ladbrokes have finally settled their bets on the US election I have some funds to think about this like this. I would agree with the majority here that the 7/2 looks good value for 2+ although 0 is probably the most likely outcome. However predicting things that are probably 4 years away seems pretty pointless considering how hard it is to predict a lot of things in politics these days that are just 4 days away.

Ah yes so they have.

Clinton/Trump ECV totals on Betfair next up I think. Might have to wait for that ridiculous Wisconsin recount for those.

https://twitter.com/LarrySchweikart/status/803341232579616768

No hand recount is good.

Big lump on Hillary at v short odds certain to come back in January.

Where are all of those millions going to go, I wonder

She is still appealing in PA and a recount still happening in WI (though not hand count) if she can delay things so the December 13 deadline missed the electoral votes can be voided unless congress allows them to be included late. Wonder if that was her game plan all along to get the ECV disallowed in these key states through late filing

The PA request will be refused (The PA rules are very clear on what needs to happen and she hasn't made the necessary deadlines). And WI have decided on a method that will allow them to get done before Dec 13th.

Yes you are correct the internet is awash with theories to how this will stop trump but the law is not on Steins side
http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/11/28/feature-report-retired-attorney-pennsylvania-recount-not-possible/

nunu

nunu said:

MTimT said:

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Obamacare is a huge issue. My premiums are going up (up, not total) $6000 next year (from $1200 pcm to $1700) AND the total limit of out of pocket expenses is going up $5000. So if we max out (likely, wife is still in chemo) that will add an extra $11,000 to our medical bills. I.e., we'll have to pay $35,000 for medical costs out of pocket.

At the same time, my wife's reimbursements as an anaesthetist (in British English - anesthesiologist to a Yank, as an anesthetist is a nurse) are going down - both those paid by Medicare/Medicaid and those reimbursed by insurance. For some Medicare cases, she gets paid $31!! That's barely the gas money to get herself there and back (she does vacation relief coverage). The only option to preserve income, unacceptable to most, is to refuse insured and (especially) MediCare/Aid patients and only provide service for cash.

So, a huge chunk of those on the supply side of medicine who are not hospital employees are looking for a major redo of Obamacare. Hillary had promised to make the situation even worse.

Another huge chunk of the middle class who are self-employed and have to pay their own insurance premiums but are 'too rich' to be subsidized are facing this kind of price hike for their health insurance. The only party offering to fix Obamacare is the GOP, and the GOP only have a chance of doing that if they control all three levers of government, which they now do.

So, IMO, the litmus for Trump and the GOP in 2018 will be progress on Obamacare.

For the rest, I am not sure. Repatriating jobs? Where will those white blue collar workers go? Back to an increasingly socialist, ethnic and gay/lesbian party who despises them? Just don't see it happening. They'll either stay with the GOP or not vote. They are lost to the Dems for at least a decade or two.

I'm sorry to hear your wife is in chemo. I hope she gets better soon.

Puts things into context. I had no idea how bad the healthcare situation is for even not poor Americans.

The Dems are falling into a trap by selecting Rep. Ellison for DNC chair, aren't they? A gift to Trump.

CarlottaVance

The Nat onal against nationalism:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyYvvVlXAAkRFnI.jpg:large

MTimT

nunu said:

MTimT said:

nunu said:

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Donald has a lot of respect for people who obey rules regarding confidential email.

A lot of people were surprised at how many middle class professionals voted for Trump, in ur opinion do u think many traditional GOP voters could switch to Dems in the mid terms if he doesn't pivot?

Obamacare is a huge issue. My premiums are going up (up, not total) $6000 next year (from $1200 pcm to $1700) AND the total limit of out of pocket expenses is going up $5000. So if we max out (likely, wife is still in chemo) that will add an extra $11,000 to our medical bills. I.e., we'll have to pay $35,000 for medical costs out of pocket.

At the same time, my wife's reimbursements as an anaesthetist (in British English - anesthesiologist to a Yank, as an anesthetist is a nurse) are going down - both those paid by Medicare/Medicaid and those reimbursed by insurance. For some Medicare cases, she gets paid $31!! That's barely the gas money to get herself there and back (she does vacation relief coverage). The only option to preserve income, unacceptable to most, is to refuse insured and (especially) MediCare/Aid patients and only provide service for cash.

So, a huge chunk of those on the supply side of medicine who are not hospital employees are looking for a major redo of Obamacare. Hillary had promised to make the situation even worse.

Another huge chunk of the middle class who are self-employed and have to pay their own insurance premiums but are 'too rich' to be subsidized are facing this kind of price hike for their health insurance. The only party offering to fix Obamacare is the GOP, and the GOP only have a chance of doing that if they control all three levers of government, which they now do.

So, IMO, the litmus for Trump and the GOP in 2018 will be progress on Obamacare.

For the rest, I am not sure. Repatriating jobs? Where will those white blue collar workers go? Back to an increasingly socialist, ethnic and gay/lesbian party who despises them? Just don't see it happening. They'll either stay with the GOP or not vote. They are lost to the Dems for at least a decade or two.

I'm sorry to hear your wife is in chemo. I hope she gets better soon.

Thanks.

peter_from_putney

Withdrawn
.

rkrkrk

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

You'd be amazed how often people don't follow obviously sensible security policies!
Plus I can imagine how easy it would be to forget...

Comments like "French will be difficult" don't seem to play to anyone's advantage?

rkrkrk

rkrkrk said:

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

You'd be amazed how often people don't follow obviously sensible security policies!
Plus I can imagine how easy it would be to forget...

Comments like "French will be difficult" don't seem to play to anyone's advantage?

Just to add... They need someone just on the inside of number 10 whose job it is to hand out nice souvenir folders and insist people put all papers in them!

dugarbandier

rkrkrk said:

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

You'd be amazed how often people don't follow obviously sensible security policies!
Plus I can imagine how easy it would be to forget...

Comments like "French will be difficult" don't seem to play to anyone's advantage?

whenever this happens it is deliberate.

I'll believe it's accidental when something like "f___ theresa" or "gas bill, eggs, condoms" is revealed on a cabinet ministers paper

RobD

peter_from_putney said:

Withdrawn
.

Indeed - it was a bit early to claim the first

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

foxinsoxuk said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803343150907617284

Apparently Petraeus is being considered for Secretary of State.

Would that be General Petraeus who was sacked for insecure handling of state secrets?

Lock him up!

Petraeus sacked and Clinton....

I think that unlike Petraeus, the FBI could not find enough evidence for a charge against Clinton.

An ideal SoS candidate for the not at all hypocritical Trumpster.

He was punished for what he did. An error doesn't mean perpetually being banned from public service. It is a major negative to be weighed in the balance

logical_song

kle4 said:

Winning a bet on UKIP seats at the GE entirely wiped out my losses at being so woeful at predictions elsewhere (I do play for small stakes!). I think it's too early to take a guess right now, but if pressed I would say 0 is more likely than making a breakthrough in many seats.

Is that guessing that Carswell will re-rat or will lose?

foxinsoxuk

logical_song said:

kle4 said:

Winning a bet on UKIP seats at the GE entirely wiped out my losses at being so woeful at predictions elsewhere (I do play for small stakes!). I think it's too early to take a guess right now, but if pressed I would say 0 is more likely than making a breakthrough in many seats.

Is that guessing that Carswell will re-rat or will lose?

Both are fairly likely, he had a much reduced majority last year. It is also quite possible that he doesn't stand.

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

nunu said:

DavidL said:

Tim_B said:

A quick fun fact. Amazon today - Cyber Monday - expects to have a peak of 630 items ordered PER SECOND.

Do you think they might make a taxable profit this year? That would be nice.

Awww we should all help out poot Amazon, no matter how much we buy from them it just is never enough.

Why didn't the left do anything about this when they just had a long period of power?

Not sure why you are asking me that. I am very definitely not of the left, especially economically.

But Amazon does wind me up. They have entirely legally created and grown a business model which has been parasitic of the societies in which they operate. That parasitism has driven out of business hundreds of businesses who played by the rules and paid their taxes. You can take the view more fool them, they should have been clever like Amazon. But if everyone operates that way the tax base disappears. You can blame stupid governments who make stupid rules but a business of the size of Amazon is a part of the community where it makes its money. And they have been taking a loan.

Dealing with globalisation is as much a problem for the right as it is for the left. Neither seems to have a plan at the moment. The way multinationals are being cosseted and featherbedded whilst small businesses are being wrung out is an absolute scandal.

Agreed. I think we have to rethink how we tax multinationals. Osborne's Google tax was an interesting way forward but fundamentally I think we need a turnover type tax (not VAT which is simply dumped on the end consumer) to ensure that those who make money in the U.K. pay tax in the U.K. on those profits, wherever their accountants like to pretend the profit is actually made.

I didn't get the distinction there - how would a turnover tax not be passed onto the consumer (that's what dumped on means?) in the way that VAT is?

Those in business don't pay VAT, we just collect it for free. We claim back any VAT we do pay even on the things we consume (such as my hotel bills). A turnover tax will be paid by all businesses on what they actually sell. Of course they will seek to pass that onto the consumer like any other cost of doing business but it will be a way of charging them for their sales here.

Casino_Royale

That aide who was photographed going into No.10 with the notes yesterday is a personal friend of mine.

I can confirm it was absolutely an accident, and she's now kicking herself whilst the press won't leave her alone.

DavidL

Shocking performance by England in the test. Looks like a 10 wicket loss after batting first. Very poor.

Alanbrooke

Casino_Royale said:

That aide who was photographed going into No.10 with the notes yesterday is a personal friend of mine.

I can confirm it was absolutely an accident, and she's now kicking herself whilst the press won't leave her alone.

Personally I cant see what all the excitement is about. Is it a surprise we'd like a deal that suits us, or that the french will be difficult ? The press is just bored and looking for column inches.

Paristonda

dugarbandier said:

rkrkrk said:

Paristonda said:

The government 'leak' brexit memo is ridiculously obvious. Surely there is a policy in place now at Downing Street that you must keep all documents covered?

You'd be amazed how often people don't follow obviously sensible security policies!
Plus I can imagine how easy it would be to forget...

Comments like "French will be difficult" don't seem to play to anyone's advantage?

whenever this happens it is deliberate.

I'll believe it's accidental when something like "f___ theresa" or "gas bill, eggs, condoms" is revealed on a cabinet ministers paper

Hopefully not both of those on the same memo though!

Jonathan

Casino_Royale said:

That aide who was photographed going into No.10 with the notes yesterday is a personal friend of mine.

I can confirm it was absolutely an accident, and she's now kicking herself whilst the press won't leave her alone.

Everyone makes silly mistakes. Few have their mistakes exposed nationally. Noone died.