politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CONFIRMED: The pre-GE2017 PB gathering: Friday May 26th: from 6.30pm: Close to St Paul’s in London
The pre-GE2017 PB gathering will take place at the Lord Raglan pub, 61 St Martins le Grand, St Pauls EC1A 4ER. An area downstairs called the Fireplace has been booked.
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Apparently their new line is that this will be "investment" so there's no need to account for it.
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
Dan Hodges: Labour's manifesto is like chocolate gateau and ice cream. Too much makes you sick! youtube.com/watch?v=hTyn0FyGEp4
Corbyn...the willy wonka of politics....giving away sweeties, which nobody has any clue how he pays for them and also has a dark past he doesn't like to talk about.
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Apparently their new line is that this will be "investment" so there's no need to account for it.
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
Its a good job we have a potential chancellor who knows all the deficit numbers...
Dan Hodges: Labour's manifesto is like chocolate gateau and ice cream. Too much makes you sick! youtube.com/watch?v=hTyn0FyGEp4
Corbyn...the willy wonka of politics....giving away sweeties, which nobody has any clue how he pays for them and also has a dark past he doesn't like to talk about.
When do we get to read Shami's report into the Oompa Loompa problem?
Cyan said: show previous quotes Best to read it and apply your intellect to it, rather than going by how a Labour politician stands up to cross-examination in a TV studio by a Tory media man like Andrew Neil.
Surely the most disappointing thing about the whole Labour manifesto saga is that they could have kept some of these things back, short manifesto, limited pledges and fully costed. I heard Deborah Mattinson talking about 1997 manifesto and she said that you have to go out of character to get cut through, wouldn't a funded manifesto have done that. This manifesto is ridiculous, it's like the kind of thing a secondary school politics class would have come up with.
So a new 45% top tax rate over £80 000 a new 50% top tax rate over £123 000, higher corporation tax, renationalisations and an end to university tuition fees but VAT on private school fees and no withdrawal from the EU unless a deal is in place first, Labour are offering the biggest change in policy from their party since 1983 now their manifesto has been launched
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Apparently their new line is that this will be "investment" so there's no need to account for it.
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
Nationalising water, energy and mail. Like buying three new houses... yes they are an investment and you can count their value in your balance sheet, but you also have to pay the mortgages on them and their value 'can go down as well as up'.
Cyan said: show previous quotes Best to read it and apply your intellect to it, rather than going by how a Labour politician stands up to cross-examination in a TV studio by a Tory media man like Andrew Neil.
Surely the most disappointing thing about the whole Labour manifesto saga is that they could have kept some of these things back, short manifesto, limited pledges and fully costed. I heard Deborah Mattinson talking about 1997 manifesto and she said that you have to go out of character to get cut through, wouldn't a funded manifesto have done that. This manifesto is ridiculous, it's like the kind of thing a secondary school politics class would have come up with.
I think it's ridiculous s/he wants me to gamble on a party that can't answer simple questions on their own party manifesto.
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Apparently their new line is that this will be "investment" so there's no need to account for it.
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
Nationalising water, energy and mail. Like buying three new houses... yes they are an investment and you can count their value in your balance sheet, but you also have to pay the mortgages on them and their value 'can go down as well as up'.
Plus you can't put the mortgage payments on the balance sheet, interest at least needs to be paid plus "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it."
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
Dan Hodges: Labour's manifesto is like chocolate gateau and ice cream. Too much makes you sick! youtube.com/watch?v=hTyn0FyGEp4
Corbyn...the willy wonka of politics....giving away sweeties, which nobody has any clue how he pays for them and also has a dark past he doesn't like to talk about.
When do we get to read Shami's report into the Oompa Loompa problem?
It will read we have no Oompa Loompa problem, despite huge number of pictures showing them slaving away and documentation showing they are employed on ZHC....
What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....
Do different Tyson, do Different!
Isn't Meeks from Norfolk?
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Now, now, many of us are children of the Wuffingas, happy citizens of the Kingdom of East Anglia centred on the most splendid city of Norwich in the highest honoured county of Norfolk. And we are strong, bor.
Labour are still spinning that their manifesto is “fully costed”, even releasing an accompanying document with details of how their policies are funded. Except it doesn’t include any costings for nationalising water, energy, mail and breaching railway contracts. Are they just planning to expropriate them?
Apparently their new line is that this will be "investment" so there's no need to account for it.
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
Nationalising water, energy and mail. Like buying three new houses... yes they are an investment and you can count their value in your balance sheet, but you also have to pay the mortgages on them and their value 'can go down as well as up'.
Plus you can't put the mortgage payments on the balance sheet, interest at least needs to be paid plus "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it."
from the Labour Manifesto: It will also “initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options, such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term”.
They can't do that Site Value Rating is destined to be the first bill of the next Liberal (Democrat) government!
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
If his fortunes change and he wins then the UK will have the most left-wing government in the western world after this manifesto except perhaps for Greece and Brexit on top of that too
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
He's 24 year old and has saved up 10k, probably mostly from low wage jobs. He is going to blow it all on one bet. Aren't there laws to stop bookies taking advantage of the painfully stupid?
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I think I've got around that figure on the election so far.
None of it is on Corbyn, some of it is on Labour - selectively - I might add.
The difference is that you know what you're doing, you look at polls, speak to people who support all parties and bet based on what will happen or what prices will change before the event - rather than betting the house on what you wish were true contrary to all the available evidence!
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
What does he have to do before you stop defending him?
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
I think I've got around that figure on the election so far.
None of it is on Corbyn, some of it is on Labour - selectively - I might add.
The difference is that you know what you're doing, you look at polls, speak to people who support all parties and bet based on what will happen or what prices will change before the event - rather than betting the house on what you wish were true contrary to all the available evidence!
I'm always mindful my next set of bets might come a cropper though
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House (Or Senate)
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
What does he have to do before you stop defending him?
I am no Trump loyalist but I don't think his base will care one bit and they make up the voters in the districts of most GOP congressmen
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
Republicans in Congress support Trump because as a president from the same party he helps deliver their agenda - selection of judges, legislation and so on. The moment they think he is going to cost them their seats they will turn on him. That moment looks to be close.
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
He's 24 year old and has saved up 10k, probably mostly from low wage jobs. He is going to blow it all on one bet. Aren't there laws to stop bookies taking advantage of the painfully stupid?
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I actually feel bad for the guy.
He is a socialist so he shouldn't be too bothered if he fails to increase his capital giving backing to the cause is more important
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
It does while there is a GOP Congress and that means at least until next November
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House (Or Senate)
Plus there's a barrage of quotes/videos of GOPers accusing Hillary of all sorts of crimes like this.
Like I said earlier, coupled with the witness intimidation and potential suborning perjury charges, this isn't going to be a fun time for Trump.
Might I remind you Norfolk knockers that alumni of my Alma mater, Norwich School, include three men who might just be the earthly trinity incarnate. Admiral Lord Nelson, Lord Ashcroft and DJ Tim Westwood. I rest my case
What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....
Do different Tyson, do Different!
Isn't Meeks from Norfolk?
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Now, now, many of us are children of the Wuffingas, happy citizens of the Kingdom of East Anglia centred on the most splendid city of Norwich in the highest honoured county of Norfolk. And we are strong, bor.
What's your opinion of the pedestrianisation of Norwich town centre?
I think I've got around that figure on the election so far.
None of it is on Corbyn, some of it is on Labour - selectively - I might add.
The difference is that you know what you're doing, you look at polls, speak to people who support all parties and bet based on what will happen or what prices will change before the event - rather than betting the house on what you wish were true contrary to all the available evidence!
I'm always mindful my next set of bets might come a cropper though
The difference is that we can all make informed mistakes, and generally don't bet what we can't afford to lose.
These two idiots bet big with their heart, and now have Norfolk & chance of seeing their cash again!
What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....
Do different Tyson, do Different!
Isn't Meeks from Norfolk?
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Now, now, many of us are children of the Wuffingas, happy citizens of the Kingdom of East Anglia centred on the most splendid city of Norwich in the highest honoured county of Norfolk. And we are strong, bor.
What's your opinion of the pedestrianisation of Norwich town centre?
I really want someone to ask Corbyn, I think he'd give an actual answer!
What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....
Do different Tyson, do Different!
Isn't Meeks from Norfolk?
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Now, now, many of us are children of the Wuffingas, happy citizens of the Kingdom of East Anglia centred on the most splendid city of Norwich in the highest honoured county of Norfolk. And we are strong, bor.
What's your opinion of the pedestrianisation of Norwich town centre?
TBH as a non driver I'm a big fan. I'm not sure drivers are loving the arse about face routes out though, the restrictions on St Stephens and changes at the Grapes Hill roundabout have buggered things a bit for them.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
Colour me cynical, but as a general rule press releases from bookies about mystery punters aren't to be taken entirely seriously.
"He is a most sound politician,....." yeah, I did think it was made up when I read that. What 24 year old speaks like that.
He'll be popping up in a Corbyn foodbank anecdote soon. "Dave from Norwich has recently fallen on hard times, and has had to use the foodbank, what is the PM going to do about it?"
Colour me cynical, but as a general rule press releases from bookies about mystery punters aren't to be taken entirely seriously.
Indeed. It's always struck me as cheap publicity. Marketing manager gives member of staff £500 in cash and says go and put it on bet X. Ergo, mystery punter has placed this bet. And it won't cost them a penny.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
There was a rumour going around about Pence last week and in the general election polling Pence polled worse than Trump, if Pence becomes President after the GOP impeach Trump do not expect Trump or his supporters to go quietly
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
Just about every Dem sees Pence and much more dangerous that Trump, Trump is a buffoon, Pence is a calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical. In that circumstance I am not sure their support can be relied upon.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
The Trump story will run and run, and the PM will need to be able to answer questions about it on QT etc. There's a free hit there for Corbyn as he can play the "tough on security card" by saying he'd cut Trump adrift ("danger to our in sources etc. etc.") for a counter-intuitive win.
The PM needs an answer, and it would really help her if she could walk back the State Visit.
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
Just about every Dem sees Pence and much more dangerous that Trump, Trump is a buffoon, Pence is a calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical. In that circumstance I am not sure their support can be relied upon.
That's a good point. The Dems in Congress would probably prefer to keep Trump in place until at least the mid term elections, when they've got a good chance of winning back the House.
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
Plus given Sanders or Warren lead current 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters he will face a more left liberal opponent than Hillary in all likelihood
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
He's 24 year old and has saved up 10k, probably mostly from low wage jobs. He is going to blow it all on one bet. Aren't there laws to stop bookies taking advantage of the painfully stupid?
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I actually feel bad for the guy.
He's 24 - plenty of time to earn back the money he's lost and sounds like he has an impressive work ethic.
I feel much angrier about the people with families who blow the money they really need to spend on other things... Also fixed odds betting machines...
What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....
Do different Tyson, do Different!
Isn't Meeks from Norfolk?
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Now, now, many of us are children of the Wuffingas, happy citizens of the Kingdom of East Anglia centred on the most splendid city of Norwich in the highest honoured county of Norfolk. And we are strong, bor.
What's your opinion of the pedestrianisation of Norwich town centre?
The Labour party have split their election promises into two documents. One is their manifesto; the other is called "Funding Britain's Future". So I was mistaken to say that they haven't quantified income tax proposals or mentioned IHT. While this is true if we just consider their manifesto, in the other document (which is only eight pages long) they do give figures and mention IHT.
They seem to think reading is for posh people. More fool me (I haven't got TV) for thinking I could inform myself on a party's platform by reading its manifesto.
Rather than talking in their manifesto about IHT, they prefer to refer 11 times to transsexuals. Let's hope Eddie Izzard doesn't help Labour lose votes as he helped lose support for Remain. Most people don't want to accept advice on how things should be in society from a man who wears women's clothes and expects everyone to treat him as though he's not a nutter.
What Labour say about IHT is that they will reverse its reduction.
As for income tax, they give the figures in a footnote, in two lines printed in italics and a small font! They say the 45p rate will start at £80K and the rate will be 50p above £123K.
Taxing the rich harder - bloody great! Be proud of it! Put it through letterboxes and on posters. The rich are getting richer, the majority are getting poorer and living more precariously - hitting the rich should be a vote-winner. Sadly, as ever, people are susceptible to the idea that without all the poshies backing the government the day would soon come when men with beards who don't genuflect to "her majesty" would hand the country over to Russia. I'm talking about people who don't bump into many Russians at Ascot or in Mayfair.
Then again, there's nothing socialist about statements such as
"Labour understands that the creation of wealth is a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards."
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
He's 24 year old and has saved up 10k, probably mostly from low wage jobs. He is going to blow it all on one bet. Aren't there laws to stop bookies taking advantage of the painfully stupid?
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I actually feel bad for the guy.
He's 24 - plenty of time to earn back the money he's lost and sounds like he has an impressive work ethic.
I feel much angrier about the people with families who blow the money they really need to spend on other things... Also fixed odds betting machines...
He'd have been better off sticking ten grand into a FOBT though !
Ah, the mindset of the Corbynista, as revealed by the mystery Norfolk punter:
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
He's 24 year old and has saved up 10k, probably mostly from low wage jobs. He is going to blow it all on one bet. Aren't there laws to stop bookies taking advantage of the painfully stupid?
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I actually feel bad for the guy.
I remember reading Paul Foot saying the International Socialists got a donation of £23,000 from a student in 1972 (probably worth about £200,000 now). He sent a telegram saying "Today I inherited my father's estate. I renounce my inheritance, and pledge myself to international socialism."
As Foot put it years later, "How he must bitterly regret what he did."
Colour me cynical, but as a general rule press releases from bookies about mystery punters aren't to be taken entirely seriously.
"He is a most sound politician,....." yeah, I did think it was made up when I read that. What 24 year old speaks like that.
He'll be popping up in a Corbyn foodbank anecdote soon. "Dave from Norwich has recently fallen on hard times, and has had to use the foodbank, what is the PM going to do about it?"
I think we will discover he has a 13 year old son who has been a naughty boy. (although he would have had him at 11.....).
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
Just about every Dem sees Pence and much more dangerous that Trump, Trump is a buffoon, Pence is a calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical. In that circumstance I am not sure their support can be relied upon.
Agreed, but he's 'their' calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical.
Pence and Ryan are expected to go down with the Trump ship, which leaves Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Twitter says he is already getting security briefings!
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
There was a rumour going around about Pence last week and in the general election polling Pence polled worse than Trump, if Pence becomes President after the GOP impeach Trump do not expect Trump or his supporters to go quietly
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
Just about every Dem sees Pence and much more dangerous that Trump, Trump is a buffoon, Pence is a calculating, experienced, well connected hard-right evangelical. In that circumstance I am not sure their support can be relied upon.
I have a potentially rather profitable private bet running with a Trumpite acquaintance that Pence will be POTUS before the end of 2018
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House (Or Senate)
Honestly I think a decent number of GOP are so hypocritical they won't care. More still won't believe it unless evidence is utterly clearcut - they don't trust the media anyway....
And finally the base will believe anything h says. The only way they turn is if they are personally affected by something IMO - healthcare is best chance for that... But they won't lose it in 2017 even id the law passes this year...
2017 Trump exit date looking incredibly dangerous to lay right now. I'm "oot" as Duncan Banatyne might say.
FPT
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages. Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
It all depends on the charges.
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
As far as I can see Trump May have been stupid but he gave the Russians information about ISIS not how to invade the USA so am not sure public opinion will be that bothered, certainly not his base anyway
Yes, but his base doesn't matter for the next 3 years.
Plus what he did is completely legal under US law, because the President is the final arbiter of what is "classfied information". So stupid, probably, treasonous, no way.
Colluding with Russia is NOT going to go down well with the GOP House.
Who are not going to commit suicide and get a dem president elected one second earlier than they have to.
The VP is Republican.
There was a rumour going around about Pence last week and in the general election polling Pence polled worse than Trump, if Pence becomes President after the GOP impeach Trump do not expect Trump or his supporters to go quietly
Do tell.
Check this month's blind items rehash, all I will say here is Pence may be a bit more liberal than he says
Having said that, Trump's approval rating hasn't dropped much, if at all, staying at around 40%. As long as he can keep those, he's probably OK. If we see them dropping to the low thirties, he's in trouble. Usually, that's fatal, although Reagan pulled back from low approval. The net approval ratings don't matter as much, I believe. Trump as always had high negatives, but that didn't stop him being elected, nor the downticket Republicans either.
Plus given Sanders or Warren lead current 2020 polls of Democratic primary voters he will face a more left liberal opponent than Hillary in all likelihood
Bernie Sanders will be 79 on the day of the 2020 election, and Elizabeth Warren 71. Have they got no-one a decade or two younger?
Comments
When are we expecting the next set of polls?
https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hTyn0FyGEp4
I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems ...
Not only that but one of the biggest expenditure items in the budget is interest and borrowing tens of billions for "investment" will increase interest payments which will increase the deficit. Let alone thinking what happens if interest rates on the governments borrowing goes up.
PBers: In a pub commemorating one of the architects of the charge of the light brigade
Cyan said:
show previous quotes
Best to read it and apply your intellect to it, rather than going by how a Labour politician stands up to cross-examination in a TV studio by a Tory media man like Andrew Neil.
Surely the most disappointing thing about the whole Labour manifesto saga is that they could have kept some of these things back, short manifesto, limited pledges and fully costed. I heard Deborah Mattinson talking about 1997 manifesto and she said that you have to go out of character to get cut through, wouldn't a funded manifesto have done that. This manifesto is ridiculous, it's like the kind of thing a secondary school politics class would have come up with.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich-city-fan-who-bet-10k-on-jeremy-corbyn-to-win-general-election-is-completely-certain-of-labour-victory-1-5018196
Betfred should not have accepted the bet IMO....
For many people watching Corbyn at the launch he will come across better than they expected. He got through with no great disaster.
Lots of people are really fed up with the establishment and will vote for and approve of anti establishment policies.
Of course his two biggest headline policies - free tuition and water in public ownership are already in place in Scotland.
One thought Labour in UK is staking everything on a radical programme. Labour in Scotland are trying to out Tory the Tories on the union.
Who do you think will fare better???
If he turns up at the bash, we should count his toes.
Student bets 10K on Labour.
Hasn't told his parents yet.
Will Republicans really turn on him for this? And will it happen fast enough to have him gone this year?
Historical comparison... Nixon impeachment started on February 6, 1974 when house of reps passed a resolution. Nixon resigned in August before a Senate trial had commenced.
Things moved quicker with Clinton but think that was because Starr had been investigating for ages.
Still took 3 months between house vote and senate trial. And that was with a Congress controlled by opposing party.
And we are strong, bor.
The man said he had previously placed smaller bets on football, but lost. However, he said he was “absolutely completely certain” Labour would win.
They can't do that Site Value Rating is destined to be the first bill of the next Liberal (Democrat) government!
Neither Johnson, Nixon, nor Clinton were charged because of crimes that could be labelled treason.
This is where Trump could finds himself in, he could take the GOP with him.
Do the GOP want to defend a treasonous President?
None of it is on Corbyn, some of it is on Labour - selectively - I might add.
Edit: "The man said he accumulated the £10,000 by working as a barman and waiter almost every night for four years while at university."
I actually feel bad for the guy.
"“I joined the Labour party so I could vote for Jeremy Corbyn. He is a most sound politician, so socialist, a person who would look after us all."
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
- Winston Churchill
Thick in the arm, thick in the head
https://twitter.com/EUVoteLeave23rd/status/864441477925097473
Like I said earlier, coupled with the witness intimidation and potential suborning perjury charges, this isn't going to be a fun time for Trump.
I rest my case
These two idiots bet big with their heart, and now have Norfolk & chance of seeing their cash again!
The PM needs an answer, and it would really help her if she could walk back the State Visit.
I feel much angrier about the people with families who blow the money they really need to spend on other things... Also fixed odds betting machines...
They seem to think reading is for posh people. More fool me (I haven't got TV) for thinking I could inform myself on a party's platform by reading its manifesto.
Rather than talking in their manifesto about IHT, they prefer to refer 11 times to transsexuals. Let's hope Eddie Izzard doesn't help Labour lose votes as he helped lose support for Remain. Most people don't want to accept advice on how things should be in society from a man who wears women's clothes and expects everyone to treat him as though he's not a nutter.
What Labour say about IHT is that they will reverse its reduction.
As for income tax, they give the figures in a footnote, in two lines printed in italics and a small font! They say the 45p rate will start at £80K and the rate will be 50p above £123K.
Taxing the rich harder - bloody great! Be proud of it! Put it through letterboxes and on posters. The rich are getting richer, the majority are getting poorer and living more precariously - hitting the rich should be a vote-winner. Sadly, as ever, people are susceptible to the idea that without all the poshies backing the government the day would soon come when men with beards who don't genuflect to "her majesty" would hand the country over to Russia. I'm talking about people who don't bump into many Russians at Ascot or in Mayfair.
Then again, there's nothing socialist about statements such as
"Labour understands that the creation of wealth is a collective endeavour between workers, entrepreneurs, investors and government. Each contributes and each must share fairly in the rewards."
As Foot put it years later, "How he must bitterly regret what he did."
And finally the base will believe anything h says. The only way they turn is if they are personally affected by something IMO - healthcare is best chance for that... But they won't lose it in 2017 even id the law passes this year...