For those of a prurient bent, or - more pertinently to PB - might be considering bets on "next departure" or "next by-election", the Sun story on the Tory spreadsheet is (deliberately?) badly obscured.
It appears that the Sun has blacked out each name proportionately to its length, rather than using the same length for all. This makes it fairly trivial, if the rule holds, to try and identify one or two of the politicians named.
For example, the ex-Cabinet Minister who is "Inappropriate with female researchers and uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts" appears to have, in the Sun's spreadsheet (...and I'm purposefully phrasing this delicately...) an unusually long name.
There's also a current Cabinet Minister, whose description is entirely blacked out, and who has a very short name.
One thing I find odd about this story is that the papers led with allegations that someone put their hand on someone else's knee fifteen years ago. Perhaps I'm out of touch but while that might be a bit inappropriate, it's hardly a page one lead. Unless there's something a bit stronger, this is going to fade away. But if there is something stronger (as per the comment above), why aren't they leading with that?
I'm with David Herdson on this, I think it is unlikely that Trump resigns/is impeached. If he is to go this term, I would reckon it would likely be because of a major health issue (it doesn't have to be death, merely something serious) given the nature of the job and his level of physical fitness. (I'd guess that's a 20-25% chance.)
However, I would be very surprised if Donald Trump didn't face a primary challenger (or two). And history suggests that incumbent Presidents that face serious challenges for the nomination (George HW Bush, Carter, Ford) don't tend to get re-elected. It's not a cast iron rule (Clinton was challenged by Lyndon LaRouche... who was in prison at the time), but it is suggestive. My money is on him not running again in 2020.
Nixon was challenged in the 1972 primaries yet still beat McGovern by a landslide.
The key word here is McGovern.
There is every chance the Democrats pick another McGovern in 2020.
There is always every chance the Democrats pick another McGovern.
No real surprises in the Gambling Review recommendation. The £100 minimum FOBTs (which are a small minority of the total number of machines) were always doomed. The question ios where the maximum stake will end up - I think there's probably a majority in Parliament for a £2 stake (the DUP have been vociferously opposed to FOBTs).
The Conservatives have a problem here given their historic links to bookmakers and bookmaking - betting shops were legalised by MacMillan in 1961 and it was Lawson who scrapped betting tax in the 80s. Paddy Power have suggested most operators should be fine with a £20 maximum stake but that's not how Ladbrokes and others have seen it and they've spoken of hundreds of shop closures and thousands of jobs lost.
There's a truth here in that people don't bet on horses and dogs the way they used to - FOBTs are so much easier for everyone and so much more lucrative. Many of the shops round here open from 7.30am to 10pm so it can't be for the dogs at Crayford or even Kempton all weather racing - it's for the FOBTs,
Richard Nixon faced a Democrat-controlled Congress. Donald Trump has a Republican-controlled Congress. Unless the 2018 elections produce a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of power (or the evidence against Donald Trump is incontrovertible not just to a forensic expert but also to the man in the street), he still looks a strong favourite to survive.
That said, I was amazed just how far the FBI seem to have got so far. Yesterday was a real coup.
With you, @david_herdson and @rcs1000 singing from the same hymn-sheet, I have laid off a little of yesterday's 1.96 on Trump to go.
But Mueller does look extraordinary effective, as you say. Or perhaps his quarries were just extraordinarily careless?
Am I reading too much into the fact that Trump’s twitter account has been silent for 21 hours ?
Richard Nixon faced a Democrat-controlled Congress. Donald Trump has a Republican-controlled Congress. Unless the 2018 elections produce a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of power (or the evidence against Donald Trump is incontrovertible not just to a forensic expert but also to the man in the street), he still looks a strong favourite to survive.
That said, I was amazed just how far the FBI seem to have got so far. Yesterday was a real coup.
I think it's odds-on that the Dems retake the House. If that happens then impeachment proceedings seem very likely given more evidence is surely going to come out.
So it comes down to the Senate/Trump resigning.
The incontrovertible evidence will be if multiple members of Trump's campaign say - yes we did do this and the President knew all about it.
For those of a prurient bent, or - more pertinently to PB - might be considering bets on "next departure" or "next by-election", the Sun story on the Tory spreadsheet is (deliberately?) badly obscured.
It appears that the Sun has blacked out each name proportionately to its length, rather than using the same length for all. This makes it fairly trivial, if the rule holds, to try and identify one or two of the politicians named.
For example, the ex-Cabinet Minister who is "Inappropriate with female researchers and uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts" appears to have, in the Sun's spreadsheet (...and I'm purposefully phrasing this delicately...) an unusually long name.
There's also a current Cabinet Minister, whose description is entirely blacked out, and who has a very short name.
One thing I find odd about this story is that the papers led with allegations that someone put their hand on someone else's knee fifteen years ago. Perhaps I'm out of touch but while that might be a bit inappropriate, it's hardly a page one lead. Unless there's something a bit stronger, this is going to fade away. But if there is something stronger (as per the comment above), why aren't they leading with that?
The only thing that's odd is the prominence given - Fallon is there because he's the first name that can be printed without having to check with lawyers, having outed himself.
One thing I find odd about this story is that the papers led with allegations that someone put their hand on someone else's knee fifteen years ago. Perhaps I'm out of touch but while that might be a bit inappropriate, it's hardly a page one lead. Unless there's something a bit stronger, this is going to fade away. But if there is something stronger (as per the comment above), why aren't they leading with that?
Burden of proof, I suspect. "We read it on a rumoured Tory internal spreadsheet, your honour" may not be the strongest defence in court. But I would expect the Sun right now to be trying to locate the prostitutes who Mr-Long-Name may have paid for "odd sexual acts", and signing them up for a kiss-and-tell.
Richard Nixon faced a Democrat-controlled Congress. Donald Trump has a Republican-controlled Congress. Unless the 2018 elections produce a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of power (or the evidence against Donald Trump is incontrovertible not just to a forensic expert but also to the man in the street), he still looks a strong favourite to survive.
That said, I was amazed just how far the FBI seem to have got so far. Yesterday was a real coup.
I think it's odds-on that the Dems retake the House. If that happens then impeachment proceedings seem very likely given more evidence is surely going to come out.
So it comes down to the Senate/Trump resigning.
The incontrovertible evidence will be if multiple members of Trump's campaign say - yes we did do this and the President knew all about it.
Presumably the author has seen the unredacted spreadsheet, so it's written from a position of some knowledge. The crucial point is 3:
"Newspapers are struggling to get complainants to go on the record with serious sexual misconduct allegations... the British press has its faults, but at uncovering sex scandals, it is generally world class. If perpetrators aren’t being named, it is because victims don’t want to go public."
It's a compelling case and well-argued.
Even so, it's plausible that there are two or three career-ending stories about Cabinet ministers in there. May might not lose her majority, but if those ministers are involved in the Brexit negotiations (legal note: I have absolutely no evidence and am not suggesting that they might be; PB readers are invited to have their own go at fitting names to the black boxes), then it's potentially destabilising for the effective functioning of Government. And that is something that could bring May down.
No real surprises in the Gambling Review recommendation. The £100 minimum FOBTs (which are a small minority of the total number of machines) were always doomed. The question ios where the maximum stake will end up - I think there's probably a majority in Parliament for a £2 stake (the DUP have been vociferously opposed to FOBTs).
Let's just for a moment run with the worst case (from their perspective) scenario of the betting industry and assume that a third or so of betting shops would close.
In the absence of alternatives as addictive as FOBTs the incidence of gambling addiction would fall significantly, at least in working class communities. There would as a consequence also be a large increase in disposable incomes in communities living on the financial edge, at least some of which would be spent in a less destructive form in local shops where the cash spent would be more likely to be recycled within the community rather than just spirited away to a remote British dependent territory tax haven. If commercial property owners were forced to reduce rent in high streets, then we would at least end up with more shops in high streets serving non-gamblers. The Government would no longer be able to raise large sums by targeting those whose addiction reduces them to poverty, instead raising those same sums through more equitable taxes applied across the whole community. There would also be knock on adverse financial consequences for loan sharks which happily fuel the habits of those with addictions. Presumbably less pressure too on those public services that deal with the consequences of extreme addiction and debt - e.g. less family break up and pressure on children's social services.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
For all the times twitter threads can be useful, I think RobD had it right that perhaps analysis of legal issues requiring such long threads would be better done via another medium?
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
We'll see. A couple more indictments/plea bargains, and those odds will swing fast.
At the moment, I haven't a clue how this will turn out - but there is now at least a realistic possibility that Trump goes down. The financial shenanigans in particular ensure that the hope of presidential pardons isn't going to ensure silence,
Presumably the author has seen the unredacted spreadsheet, so it's written from a position of some knowledge. The crucial point is 3:
"Newspapers are struggling to get complainants to go on the record with serious sexual misconduct allegations... the British press has its faults, but at uncovering sex scandals, it is generally world class. If perpetrators aren’t being named, it is because victims don’t want to go public."
It's a compelling case and well-argued.
Even so, it's plausible that there are two or three career-ending stories about Cabinet ministers in there. May might not lose her majority, but if those ministers are involved in the Brexit negotiations (legal note: I have absolutely no evidence and am not suggesting that they might be; PB readers are invited to have their own go at fitting names to the black boxes), then it's potentially destabilising for the effective functioning of Government. And that is something that could bring May down.
FWIW I think this story has been over-egged. Several thousand people work at Westminster - in any workplace of that size you are going to find a number of sex pests and other undesirables. Unless allegations of criminal activity emerge - which I doubt - this will peter out with no threat to the government, no resignations and no by-elections.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
What's very odd is that the market didn't crash yesterday. That can partly be attributed to the odds of removal being too short before, but there's surely no way that Mueller's opening salvo was priced in as being quite this incendiary.
I nearly posted the same yesterday in relation to the Seth Abramson breathless tweets.
That said, I cannot see the Papadopoulos situation being anything but awful for Trump unless a lot of others fall on their swords for him. Given how little loyalty and respect he has shown to Sessions and others, if I were Trump, I'd be very worried that someone will implicate him if there's even the smallest skeleton to be exposed.
Still aways from a successful impeachment and conviction, but the direction is clearly not good for Trump.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
I nearly posted the same yesterday in relation to the Seth Abramson breathless tweets.
That said, I cannot see the Papadopoulos situation being anything but awful for Trump unless a lot of others fall on their swords for him. Given how little loyalty and respect he has shown to Sessions and others, if I were Trump, I'd be very worried that someone will implicate him if there's even the smallest skeleton to be exposed.
Still aways from a successful impeachment and conviction, but the direction is clearly not good for Trump.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
I'm not sure that the real intent is to Impeach Trump - in fact I'd be very surprised if there was actually anything criminal to find (he's have to be pretty stupid to do anything criminal that could be proven). The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
Aussies are not buying the story about the two US women adrift at sea for 5 months with their dogs. The comments are universally skeptical and scathing:
I'm not sure that the real intent is to Impeach Trump - in fact I'd be very surprised if there was actually anything criminal to find (he's have to be pretty stupid to do anything criminal that could be proven). The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
Maybe, just maybe, the real intent is to uphold the rule of law and ensure there are consequences for corruption of the democratic process?
@andybell5news: Spoken to 6 MPs who appear on a version of the alleged #harassment list - all horrified they are on it and all deny the allegations
*tinfoilhat time* If you think about it, a dodgy spreadsheet like this, is a good way to muddy the waters to hide behind.
One problem is that the bar is set very high (or do I mean low) with the past antics of those such as John Prescot and his pa(?). At what point is the initial flirting, suggestion or physical contact divorced from pressure and power and the activity becomes consensual? The answer will be different in all relationships and liasons.
Repeated pressure and not accepting 'No' as a definitive and final instruction obviously crosses the line. Other lines may be difficult to identify consistently and define in a universal way.
What Hartley Brewer views as acceptable last night will be different from the views of some other women.
A really difficult mess to untangle. I have no doubt there is misuse of power and influence, good luck in identifying and agreeing what it is in all but the most obvious cases.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
If you can get the numbers to stack up, bet that Trump won't leave office before 2020 but will NOT be reelected president in 2020. You will win one of those bets and probably both IMO.
The big problem with assessing the legal risk to Trump is that you need to peel off thick layers of wishful thinking when reading almost any comment on it. An awful lot of people who are well-informed are also really, really keen for it to be true that Trump will be indicted (and who can blame them?). Ordinarily, that would be a strong signal to bet against him being impeached, as the odds will be distorted by all that wishful thinking.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
If you can get the numbers to stack up, bet that Trump won't leave office before 2020 but will NOT be reelected president in 2020. You will win one of those bets and probably both IMO.
That seems the most likely scenario this afternoon.
One thing I find odd about this story is that the papers led with allegations that someone put their hand on someone else's knee fifteen years ago. Perhaps I'm out of touch but while that might be a bit inappropriate, it's hardly a page one lead. Unless there's something a bit stronger, this is going to fade away. But if there is something stronger (as per the comment above), why aren't they leading with that?
Burden of proof, I suspect. "We read it on a rumoured Tory internal spreadsheet, your honour" may not be the strongest defence in court. But I would expect the Sun right now to be trying to locate the prostitutes who Mr-Long-Name may have paid for "odd sexual acts", and signing them up for a kiss-and-tell.
I think we may have to wait for the juicy stuff in the Sunday papers. That's how the British do it.
I'm not sure that the real intent is to Impeach Trump - in fact I'd be very surprised if there was actually anything criminal to find (he's have to be pretty stupid to do anything criminal that could be proven). The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
Maybe, just maybe, the real intent is to uphold the rule of law and ensure there are consequences for corruption of the democratic process?
If that were the case, Clinton would have been tried already, regardless of the recent developments, over the server misuse.
I can't see Trump being successfully impeached before the end of 2020 unless the Democrats take both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the midterms next year and even then a few Republican Senators would have to vote with the Democrats.
If Trump is forced out or does not seek re election then a lot of his supporters would sit out the next presidential election which would boost the chances of a Democratic nominee Sanders.
I'm not sure that the real intent is to Impeach Trump - in fact I'd be very surprised if there was actually anything criminal to find (he's have to be pretty stupid to do anything criminal that could be proven). The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
Maybe, just maybe, the real intent is to uphold the rule of law and ensure there are consequences for corruption of the democratic process?
If that were the case, Clinton would have been tried already, regardless of the recent developments, over the server misuse.
She didn't actually break any laws. She may have broken the spirit of the Federal Records Act but she did not break the letter of the law. She does not appear to have broken any other laws. So you are asking the state to prosecute her despite the absence of any evidence of a crime.
I'm with David Herdson on this, I think it is unlikely that Trump resigns/is impeached. If he is to go this term, I would reckon it would likely be because of a major health issue (it doesn't have to be death, merely something serious) given the nature of the job and his level of physical fitness. (I'd guess that's a 20-25% chance.)
However, I would be very surprised if Donald Trump didn't face a primary challenger (or two). And history suggests that incumbent Presidents that face serious challenges for the nomination (George HW Bush, Carter, Ford) don't tend to get re-elected. It's not a cast iron rule (Clinton was challenged by Lyndon LaRouche... who was in prison at the time), but it is suggestive. My money is on him not running again in 2020.
Nixon was challenged in the 1972 primaries yet still beat McGovern by a landslide.
Not by anyone significant but a Congressman Ashbrook who won 5% and no states and the US now has a far bigger minority population and smaller white working class population as a percentage than it did in 1972. Nixon was also basically a Rockefeller Republican who backed the Vietnam War.
I'm not sure that the real intent is to Impeach Trump - in fact I'd be very surprised if there was actually anything criminal to find (he's have to be pretty stupid to do anything criminal that could be proven). The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
Maybe, just maybe, the real intent is to uphold the rule of law and ensure there are consequences for corruption of the democratic process?
If that were the case, Clinton would have been tried already, regardless of the recent developments, over the server misuse.
Can you impeach someone who has not been elected President ?
For a President to be impeached, technically no illegality needs to be proven. Just the House needs to impeach the President with a simple majority and the Senate has to ratify with a two-thirds majority.
As such, either illegality or some reprehensible immorality has to be there in reality.
If Michael Fallon has made a fulsome apology for touching Julia Hartley-Brewers leg fifteen years ago it tells me that our MPs hold themselves to much higher standards of probity than the rest of us.
I'm with David Herdson on this, I think it is unlikely that Trump resigns/is impeached. If he is to go this term, I would reckon it would likely be because of a major health issue (it doesn't have to be death, merely something serious) given the nature of the job and his level of physical fitness. (I'd guess that's a 20-25% chance.)
However, I would be very surprised if Donald Trump didn't face a primary challenger (or two). And history suggests that incumbent Presidents that face serious challenges for the nomination (George HW Bush, Carter, Ford) don't tend to get re-elected. It's not a cast iron rule (Clinton was challenged by Lyndon LaRouche... who was in prison at the time), but it is suggestive. My money is on him not running again in 2020.
Nixon was challenged in the 1972 primaries yet still beat McGovern by a landslide.
Not by anyone significant but a Congressman Ashbrook who won 5% and no states and the US now has a far bigger minority population and smaller white working class population as a percentage than it did in 1972. Nixon was also basically a Rockefeller Republican who backed the Vietnam War.
Nixon was also opposed by McCloskey who polled almost 20% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary that year.
If Michael Fallon has made a fulsome apology for touching Julia Hartley-Brewers leg fifteen years ago it tells me that our MPs hold themselves to much higher standards of probity than the rest of us.
He thought that his position of power, such that it was (no idea), would be enough to entice the lovely miss H-B and, as we saw with Antonia Sanchez, such a ploy can work ("what was it about the powerful government minister that first attracted you...").
So it if it is not an abuse of power, it is certainly a use of it to obtain in this case presumably sex.
No chance Trump doesn't make it to 2020, and I don't see any Republican capable of beating him to the nomination again
What do you mean by 'no chance'? 10/1? 50/1? 200/1? 1000/1?
Eh, whether Trump makes it to 2020 has nothing to do with Republican nomination for WH2020.
That's answering a different point (though you're right to flag it up - I think it's probably an error in the thread leader; the market is surely about whether Trump fails to make it to 20 Jan 2021?)
But I still go back to asking, what do you mean by 'no chance'?
There are many ways he could leave the White House before the end of his term. Death, resignation through illness, being forced out on health grounds under the 25th amendment, impeachment, resignation pending actual or likely impeachment; all are possible.
Comments
oh, wait.
No real surprises in the Gambling Review recommendation. The £100 minimum FOBTs (which are a small minority of the total number of machines) were always doomed. The question ios where the maximum stake will end up - I think there's probably a majority in Parliament for a £2 stake (the DUP have been vociferously opposed to FOBTs).
The Conservatives have a problem here given their historic links to bookmakers and bookmaking - betting shops were legalised by MacMillan in 1961 and it was Lawson who scrapped betting tax in the 80s. Paddy Power have suggested most operators should be fine with a £20 maximum stake but that's not how Ladbrokes and others have seen it and they've spoken of hundreds of shop closures and thousands of jobs lost.
There's a truth here in that people don't bet on horses and dogs the way they used to - FOBTs are so much easier for everyone and so much more lucrative. Many of the shops round here open from 7.30am to 10pm so it can't be for the dogs at Crayford or even Kempton all weather racing - it's for the FOBTs,
Another stat which might prove a more useful betting guide... ?
3 of the last 4 races have seen Ocon and Perez respectively start 6th and 9th.
If that happens then impeachment proceedings seem very likely given more evidence is surely going to come out.
So it comes down to the Senate/Trump resigning.
The incontrovertible evidence will be if multiple members of Trump's campaign say - yes we did do this and the President knew all about it.
That's what Mueller has to get.
Mr. B, Verstappen's odds, 4 last I checked, don't tempt. But Red Bull for the Constructors', when that gets going, may be worth a look.
https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/tag/follow-the-money/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/what-does-tulsi-gabbard-believe
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/oct/31/labour-says-government-betting-terminal-proposals-deeply-disappointing-politics-live?page=with:block-59f84ced371e7105d2bd3456#block-59f84ced371e7105d2bd3456
Presumably the author has seen the unredacted spreadsheet, so it's written from a position of some knowledge. The crucial point is 3:
"Newspapers are struggling to get complainants to go on the record with serious sexual misconduct allegations... the British press has its faults, but at uncovering sex scandals, it is generally world class. If perpetrators aren’t being named, it is because victims don’t want to go public."
It's a compelling case and well-argued.
Even so, it's plausible that there are two or three career-ending stories about Cabinet ministers in there. May might not lose her majority, but if those ministers are involved in the Brexit negotiations (legal note: I have absolutely no evidence and am not suggesting that they might be; PB readers are invited to have their own go at fitting names to the black boxes), then it's potentially destabilising for the effective functioning of Government. And that is something that could bring May down.
In the absence of alternatives as addictive as FOBTs the incidence of gambling addiction would fall significantly, at least in working class communities. There would as a consequence also be a large increase in disposable incomes in communities living on the financial edge, at least some of which would be spent in a less destructive form in local shops where the cash spent would be more likely to be recycled within the community rather than just spirited away to a remote British dependent territory tax haven. If commercial property owners were forced to reduce rent in high streets, then we would at least end up with more shops in high streets serving non-gamblers. The Government would no longer be able to raise large sums by targeting those whose addiction reduces them to poverty, instead raising those same sums through more equitable taxes applied across the whole community. There would also be knock on adverse financial consequences for loan sharks which happily fuel the habits of those with addictions. Presumbably less pressure too on those public services that deal with the consequences of extreme addiction and debt - e.g. less family break up and pressure on children's social services.
Still, as others have noted, just considering what we know for sure already, and even ignoring all speculation, the evidence against senior members of the Trump team does seem to be quite substantive. Whether it will lead to indictment is more dubious, however; indictment is in reality a political, not a legal, issue, and it's very hard to see Republican politicians alienating the Trump base they need for re-election, even if that base does diminish in size over the next couple of years. A messy and protracted game of blame-shifting seems the most likely outcome to me, with Trump left severely damaged but not actually displaced.
At current odds, therefore, I'd rather be on the 'survives to 2020' side of the bet.
May
Fox
Hunt
Rudd
Gove
Evans
Davis
Clark
Javid
Patel
Gauke
Cairns
Of course Theresa May has quite a long first name, while Liam Fox, for example, doesn’t.....
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/925333956110757888
A couple more indictments/plea bargains, and those odds will swing fast.
At the moment, I haven't a clue how this will turn out - but there is now at least a realistic possibility that Trump goes down. The financial shenanigans in particular ensure that the hope of presidential pardons isn't going to ensure silence,
That said, I cannot see the Papadopoulos situation being anything but awful for Trump unless a lot of others fall on their swords for him. Given how little loyalty and respect he has shown to Sessions and others, if I were Trump, I'd be very worried that someone will implicate him if there's even the smallest skeleton to be exposed.
Still aways from a successful impeachment and conviction, but the direction is clearly not good for Trump.
"Infamy, infamy. They've all got it in for me."
The intent is to make sure that he's bogged down in scandal for the whole of his term, so that he just can't achieve anything - business as normal resumed in 2020 with two more acceptable candidates.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/us-women-lost-at-sea-never-used-epirb-coast-guard-says/9103890
https://order-order.com/2017/10/31/corbynistas-celebrate-inspirational-russian-revolution/
Repeated pressure and not accepting 'No' as a definitive and final instruction obviously crosses the line. Other lines may be difficult to identify consistently and define in a universal way.
What Hartley Brewer views as acceptable last night will be different from the views of some other women.
A really difficult mess to untangle. I have no doubt there is misuse of power and influence, good luck in identifying and agreeing what it is in all but the most obvious cases.
If Trump is forced out or does not seek re election then a lot of his supporters would sit out the next presidential election which would boost the chances of a Democratic nominee Sanders.
For a President to be impeached, technically no illegality needs to be proven. Just the House needs to impeach the President with a simple majority and the Senate has to ratify with a two-thirds majority.
As such, either illegality or some reprehensible immorality has to be there in reality.
I am sure this is OK as a price for freedom!
NEW THREAD
So it if it is not an abuse of power, it is certainly a use of it to obtain in this case presumably sex.
But I still go back to asking, what do you mean by 'no chance'?
There are many ways he could leave the White House before the end of his term. Death, resignation through illness, being forced out on health grounds under the 25th amendment, impeachment, resignation pending actual or likely impeachment; all are possible.