Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » CONFIRMED: The pre-GE2017 PB gathering: Friday May 26th: from

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited May 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    First!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited May 2017
    Second like Corbyn if he is lucky...

    When are we expecting the next set of polls?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    I'll try and make it, depending on sciatica and what the bank holiday trains are like.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Dan Hodges: Labour's manifesto is like chocolate gateau and ice cream. Too much makes you sick!
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=hTyn0FyGEp4
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/

    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.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Sandpit said:

    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.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    Labour: The charge of the light in the head brigade

    PBers: In a pub commemorating one of the architects of the charge of the light brigade
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285

    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/

    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...
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    Sandpit said:

    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?
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    edited May 2017

    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.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Why 10/1 though? I would have given him 20/1!
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/faisalislam/status/864409168513511424

    From way below target to just above target.
    CPI is now 35% above target. RPI is now 3.5% - back to the levels of the mid 1980s.
    Target is 2% plus or minus a point on either side. CPI is well within that range (it wasn't within the range this time last year).
    When will Carney write his letter ? What will he say ?

    Oi, the government, your decision to go for Brexit did this !
    He only has to write a letter if it breaches 3%. Nearly a year on from the referendum that threshold still hasn't been met.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    edited May 2017
    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
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434
  • Options
    BaskervilleBaskerville Posts: 391

    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/

    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'.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024


    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.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050
    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    I seem to recall the last Labour government calling a lot of expenditure "investment" and it caused some problems

    Brown was always "investing" and rarely "spending".
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    I'll try and make it, depending on sciatica and what the bank holiday trains are like.

    Be careful to watch out for elderly LAB leaders sitting on the floor in the corridor
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050
    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....

  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....

    As they say - Normal for Norfolk"
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....

    Do different Tyson, do Different!
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/

    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."
  • Options
    scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    I think you Tory types on this site are missing the point.

    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???
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,320

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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.
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    Why not? Unless he obviously didn't have the mental capacity or was drunk or on drugs, isn't he entitled to waste his own money?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,625

    I'll try and make it, depending on sciatica and what the bank holiday trains are like.

    Be careful to watch out for elderly LAB leaders sitting on the floor in the corridor
    Little chance of that in Mr Eagles' First Class carriage!
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,249
    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    If I have read it right:

    Student bets 10K on Labour.

    Hasn't told his parents yet.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    edited May 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    If I have read it right:

    Student bets 10K on Labour.

    Hasn't told his parents yet.
    "Mum, Dad, I've bet my life savings on that man you call a "Godless Marxist traitor" becoming the next PM."
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285

    Sandpit said:

    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....
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472

    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    If I have read it right:

    Student bets 10K on Labour.

    Hasn't told his parents yet.
    Studying biology in Norfolk sounds interesting.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Re, PB gathering – cheers to (not so) Fat_Steve for discovering yet another cracking venue.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,946

    Re, PB gathering – cheers to (not so) Fat_Steve for discovering yet another cracking venue.

    Seconded! Not sure I'll be able to make it but it's in the diary in case I'm free!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    Ten grand on Corbyn? Well he's about to learn his lesson the hard way...
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,249

    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?

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/16/nationalisation-costings-missing-labour-funding-document/

    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."
    How come BT has been left in peace?
  • Options
    paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....

    Yes wasn't it a Norfolk punter who had £500 on UKIP most seats last week?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 902
    edited May 2017
    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!

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I hope this new meeting place is better than the last one, where you couldn't hear oneself think.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited May 2017
    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.
  • Options
    Yay! A PB piss up.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    If I have read it right:

    Student bets 10K on Labour.

    Hasn't told his parents yet.
    ...and mortgaged the house?
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    I assume he's mentally ill. Probably a manic depressive in an upswing spending frenzy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    edited May 2017

    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
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited May 2017

    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.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    If I have read it right:

    Student bets 10K on Labour.

    Hasn't told his parents yet.

    "“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

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    Pulpstar said:

    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!
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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?
  • Options
    PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 712

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    What is it about Norfolk that punters are inclined to make suicidal bets....

    As they say - Normal for Norfolk"
    Norfolk born, Norfolk bred
    Thick in the arm, thick in the head
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited May 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.

    What does he have to do before you stop defending him?

    In this case actually breaking the law would be a good start.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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 :o
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Colour me cynical, but as a general rule press releases from bookies about mystery punters aren't to be taken entirely seriously.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited May 2017

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,249
    Sandpit said:

    tyson said:

    The poor fucker spent years saving up for this bet.......

    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....

    Ten grand on Corbyn? Well he's about to learn his lesson the hard way...
    It does indeed seem like the supreme metaphor for the wake-up call that the Corbyn cultists are going to get on 8th June.
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,722
    edited May 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    nunu said:

    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
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    edited May 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,472
    edited May 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024

    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.
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    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
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    nunu said:

    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 is most good. Most good
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited May 2017
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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 :o
    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!
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    rpjs said:

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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!
  • Options
    dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited May 2017
    rpjs said:

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    nunu said:

    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?"
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    I've asked Luke Wright whether he's actually contacted the punter or if its from a Betfred press release.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    As a young lefty, if he's betting on Corbyn he has no concept of hedging
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,722
    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.
  • Options
    ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    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.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011
    FF43 said:

    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
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    nunu said:

    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...
  • Options
    PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 712
    rpjs said:

    tyson said:

    Sandpit said:

    The "Brave punter in Norfolk" could have got much better odds on Betfair. Sufficient cash available to lay Mrs May at 1.07 as PM after the election.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28051210/market?marketId=1.131081434

    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?
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zcf9wZaVUpE/ToXjjqrzKzI/AAAAAAAAA54/zSrSgqlw9aI/s1600/partridge-shrug_o_GIFSoup.com.gif
  • Options
    CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    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."


  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    rkrkrk said:

    nunu said:

    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 !
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    nunu said:

    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."
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024

    nunu said:

    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.....).
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    IcarusIcarus Posts: 902
    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!
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • Options
    RobCRobC Posts: 398

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    As i said on the previous thread so many maomentumers appear to be poshos...looks at jezza's communist GE coordinator.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,011

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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?
This discussion has been closed.