politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden now back as favourite for the Democratic nomination

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden now back as favourite for the Democratic nomination

The betdata.io chart tells the story of the fight for the Democratic nomination over the past few months and tracks the rise and fall of Elizabeth Warren. At one stage the Senator from Massachusetts was rated at more than a 50% chance on Betfair.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Bugger.

TheScreamingEagles

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

dr_spyn

Bognor

148grss

I'm still of the opinion Warren is most likely, followed by Bernie and then Biden.

Whoever is betting HRC is mad.

Stark_Dawning

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

TheScreamingEagles

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

dr_spyn

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

First born males?

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).

Stark_Dawning

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Through-the-looking-glass stuff. And Jezza is actually being more miserly than Boris on this.

eek

I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Would you be as happy to make a similar remark about German people?

eek

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).

I don't think so as minimum wage is tied to tax credits - so that you didn't have people qualifying by doing work at £1 an hour with the Government topping things up.

The issue with increasing wages is the seeming lack of ability to increase productivity which means that as the minimum wage rises more and more job roles are being pushed into the minimum wage world.

Nigel_Foremain

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Two very different proposals.

The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.

Endillion

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

TheScreamingEagles

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I’m equally contemptuous of all religions, well except Pastafarians, touch his noodly appendage.

They are all Shi’ite to me.

OldKingCole

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.

Endillion

On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

tlg86

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

Is the Catholic Herald the Vatican? (or can it be considered to be the mouthpiece of it, rather than a newspaper aimed at Catholics?)

TheScreamingEagles

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Two very different proposals.

The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.

I heard similar warnings in 1997. That turned out to be Project Fear.

TheScreamingEagles

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

Yeah this.

Nigel_Foremain

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

I am not trying to, and yes of course he meant The RomanCatholic Church, unless he was misusing the apostrophe! Some people, use historical references as excuses for their prejudice toward Roman Catholics. It is just as bad as islamophobia, and probably more deep seated

Endillion

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.

The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.

philiph

On topic, the blunderer Biden seems to have Teflon resilience to suffering impact or damage from his frequent errors in connecting mouth and brain.

Without any political dimension, he appears to be almost as challenged as Trump in this respect. The possibility of having USA selecting between Biden and Trump for POTUS must be a concern to us all. They both appear to be less mentally competent than Regan when he started his second term, and the way he deteriorated in the second term was obvious for all to see.

What are the chances of an independent seeing an opportunity to be the bright spark in a dimly light contest?

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Two very different proposals.

The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.

I heard similar warnings in 1997. That turned out to be Project Fear.

In 1997 a rather clever, staggered by age Minimum Wage policy was introduced. Traditionally youth unemployment was always much higher than older unemployment, so by staggering the minimum wage it encouraged employers to offer opportunities to the young who could then gain some experience then get a pay rise rather than be stuck unemployed. This would end that overnight.

If you seriously think that more than doubling overnight youth wages won't hit youth unemployment then does that not apply to other age brackets? If you can take £4.35 to £10 per hour for 16 year olds why not say £20 per hour for those aged over 25? That's the same proportional increase.

TheScreamingEagles

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.

The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.

Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.

kamski

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

I assume it was an attempt at humour.
Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.

OldKingCole

Endillion said:

On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
Although I've no intention of giving up yet.

TrèsDifficile

I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

• 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
  
• 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
  
• 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
  
• 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
  

TheScreamingEagles

kamski said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

I assume it was an attempt at humour.
Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.

Don’t forget their role as the world’s largest paedophile exchange network.

Pulpstar

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

148grss

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
Although I've no intention of giving up yet.

Buttigieg's chances of winning are, like, 1%. He does not have the non-white support needed in a party as diverse as the Democratic party to win the nomination.

eek

TrèsDifficile said:

I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

• 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
  
• 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
  
• 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
  
• 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
  

That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.

Philip_Thompson

Youth unemployment has trended since 1997 at twice general unemployment, despite the lower minimum wage. But UK youth unemployment is one of the lowest in the EU.

How can anyone sane think that offering an overnight 21.8% increase in minimum wage for over 25s and a 130% increase in minimum wage for under 18s won't lead to a major increase in youth unemployment?

Be serious!

Morris_Dancer

Hmm. Maybe my hedge on Biden on Ladbrokes Exchange (which isn't taking new bets but old ones are still up) will get matched after all. Think it was about 4.1.

Sandpit

On topic, we’ll done to those who laid Warren when she was odds-on. Not really been following this, but know that it’s like a Test Match with lots of ebbs and flows, and the value is usually in laying the favourite.

AlastairMeeks

Pulpstar said:

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

kamski said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

I assume it was an attempt at humour.
Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.

Don’t forget their role as the world’s largest paedophile exchange network.

They probably come second to our public schools.

Pulpstar

The market has completely overvalued perceived momentum, debate wins, debate screwups and how good particular candidates are.

It has undervalued being well established, actually running for the office and raw polling numbers.

I've watched about 15 minutes of the entire debates, and providing one of the septugenarians hasn't shat themselves on stage generally bet against the shiny new (Or old in the case of Bloomberg and Clinton) hopes steaming in on the betting markets.

Sanders' heart attack I thought might shift things but it doesn't seem to have affected him too much in the polling.

There'll be plenty of voters who won't be paying too much attention and they'll go out and vote for Jo Biden because he's perceived as the moderate choice.

OldKingCole

TheScreamingEagles said:

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.

The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.

Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.

To be fair, and to argue against myself, it was Cromwell who formally let the Jews back, although since Shakespeare had Jewish characters I assume there were Jews in London around 1600.

Morris_Dancer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0zaebtU-CA

Pulpstar

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.

My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.

IshmaelZ

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

Or the damage done to the world's poor by prohibiting contraception. Or the relentless child rape.

MarqueeMark

eek said:

TrèsDifficile said:

I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

• 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
  
• 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
  
• 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
  
• 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
  

That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.

I suspect that there are a significant number of folk in the £100k - £123k in the London/SE commuter belt area who would be rethinking lending their vote to the LibDems if that became known.

I mean, taxing a bunch of people who are "comfortable but not rich" at between 2/3rds and 3/4 of their income in that band is just spiteful. The only amusing aspect is that it would catch the Corbyn Cabinet.

Stark_Dawning

Morris_Dancer said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0zaebtU-CA

Great album. Crap name. Crap cover.

TheScreamingEagles

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).

There’s a direct link between minimum wage, productivity, unemployment and immigation levels.

Those in favour of a high minimum wage and unlimited unskilled immigration are going to create a three tier society:

1. The unemployed and unemployable
2. The minimum wage workers
3. The elites.

With the current skilled working and middle classes mostly relegated to 2 rather than promoted to 3.

Guess how that works out in the long term?

TrèsDifficile

Also from Funding Real Change, does anyone know what CDEL and RDEL mean?

Apparently the cost to "Abolish tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (RDEL) for full-time and part-time students" is £13.6bn, but £6.4bn is clawed back by "Savings on existing tuition fee system in CDEL"

RDEL gets 13 mentions, and CDEL 3, but neither are defined in the document.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.

My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.

I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


Who will be my Marco Rubio?

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

Youth unemployment has trended since 1997 at twice general unemployment, despite the lower minimum wage. But UK youth unemployment is one of the lowest in the EU.

How can anyone sane think that offering an overnight 21.8% increase in minimum wage for over 25s and a 130% increase in minimum wage for under 18s won't lead to a major increase in youth unemployment?

Be serious!

Unemployment under Labour is always higher on leaving office than they inherited. This would ensure they were off to a flying start in keeping that record alive.

Philip_Thompson

Why's Farage launching his manifesto contract in a Tory seat that he presumably has no candidate in?

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

TrèsDifficile

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

I thought he said it didn't put him in the top 5%, which it still would but without him seeming quite so mad..

JC4PMers on twitter are convinced he's a tory plant. Rubbish plant if so

beentheredonethat

eek said:

I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

I see two orange ones.
Is orange the colour of corporatism?

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.

My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.

I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


Who will be my Marco Rubio?

How is your book at the moment ?

Don't need exact numbers just like

Biden - 4
Warren - 5
Sanders -1
Buttigieg -7
Clinton + 30
Bloomberg + 20
Harris -15
Field -5

I mean that would be a really poor book but we might be able to come up with a fix.

kamski

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

he said he wasn't even in the top 50%. watch the clip

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

Why's Farage launching his manifesto contract in a Tory seat that he presumably has no candidate in?

And where is his "taking it to Labour" strategy? We are over half way through the campaign - and I don't recall seeing evidence of it.

rkrkrk

TrèsDifficile said:

Also from Funding Real Change, does anyone know what CDEL and RDEL mean?

Apparently the cost to "Abolish tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (RDEL) for full-time and part-time students" is £13.6bn, but £6.4bn is clawed back by "Savings on existing tuition fee system in CDEL"

RDEL gets 13 mentions, and CDEL 3, but neither are defined in the document.

Rdel is resource, cdel is capital. Del is departmental expenditure limit, to be contrasted with ame (more volatile spending).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending#departmental-expenditure-limits-del

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.

My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.

I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


Who will be my Marco Rubio?

How is your book at the moment ?

Don't need exact numbers just like

Biden - 4
Warren - 5
Sanders -1
Buttigieg -7
Clinton + 30
Bloomberg + 20
Harris -15
Field -5

I mean that would be a really poor book but we might be able to come up with a fix.

Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.

Really green on the others.

MarqueeMark

beentheredonethat said:

eek said:

I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

I see two orange ones.
Is orange the colour of corporatism?

I see two buses not made by Boris, because there are no happy smiling people in the windows.....

AramintaMoonbeamQC

Labour down 28% in Skem.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

IshmaelZ

MarqueeMark said:

beentheredonethat said:

eek said:

I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

I see two orange ones.
Is orange the colour of corporatism?

I see two buses not made by Boris, because there are no happy smiling people in the windows.....

They are Boris buses. The wheels are not going round and round.

Sandpit

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

Pulpstar

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Labour down 28% in Skem.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

88.8% of the vote last time, blimey.

eek

MarqueeMark said:

eek said:

TrèsDifficile said:

I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

• 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
  
• 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
  
• 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
  
• 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
  

That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.

I suspect that there are a significant number of folk in the £100k - £123k in the London/SE commuter belt area who would be rethinking lending their vote to the LibDems if that became known.

I mean, taxing a bunch of people who are "comfortable but not rich" at between 2/3rds and 3/4 of their income in that band is just spiteful. The only amusing aspect is that it would catch the Corbyn Cabinet.

I don't know how to fix it but that band is completely insane.

Someone mentioned a job paying £130k to me earlier this week. My first thought was £30k of that is off into the pension pot.

MarqueeMark

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Labour down 28% in Skem.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.

Sandpit

TrèsDifficile said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

I thought he said it didn't put him in the top 5%, which it still would but without him seeming quite so mad..

JC4PMers on twitter are convinced he's a tory plant. Rubbish plant if so

He’s a JC plant, they want Tories to be talking about £80k being a reasonable salary. Top 5% is roughly correct, as much as a lot of people in London (or close by and commuting) think everyone gets paid that much.

humbugger

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Richard_Nabavi

My book is currently:

Warren +6.2
Biden +3.4
Buttgieg +2.7
Sanders +3.3
Harris +2.9
Klobuchar +4.2

Hillary -7.5
Yang -0.2
Michelle Obama (!) -5
Tulsi Gabbard -1.8

The Field mostly +0.9

Which ain't too bad I think. Maybe I need to bump up Buttgieg somewhat?

AramintaMoonbeamQC

MarqueeMark said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Labour down 28% in Skem.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.

Skelmersdale is basically Liverpool overspill, so unsurprising. Down almost 30% doesn't bode well for Dec 12th, though.

Sean_F

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.

Richard_Nabavi

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

MarqueeMark said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Labour down 28% in Skem.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.

Skelmersdale is basically Liverpool overspill, so unsurprising. Down almost 30% doesn't bode well for Dec 12th, though.

It doesn't really mean much since there's an independent who didn't stand last time.

kamski

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?

Endillion

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Endillion said:

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.

Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics

I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.

To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.

The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.

Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.

To be fair, and to argue against myself, it was Cromwell who formally let the Jews back, although since Shakespeare had Jewish characters I assume there were Jews in London around 1600.

Yes, but not resident there. I think mostly traders coming in for short periods from the Continent.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!

Richard_Nabavi

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

MarqueeMark

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?

Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967 now applicable across the UK?

Simple question to both parties - is Labour's or the LibDem's policy to do away with the Abortion Act 1967 time limit - yes or no?

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!

Prime Minister Aaron Bell will be generous towards me.

Sandpit

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?

The LD policy specifically mentioned retaining the current 24 week limit, the Labour manifesto didn’t. Hence the questioning of it by religious groups.

kle4

148grss said:

OldKingCole said:

Endillion said:

On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
Although I've no intention of giving up yet.

Buttigieg's chances of winning are, like, 1%. He does not have the non-white support needed in a party as diverse as the Democratic party to win the nomination.

I've assumed the thinking is if he can win those early contests and be the front runner the non white support will follow.

TheScreamingEagles

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.

TrèsDifficile

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

Blimey.. He starts by saying he's not in the top 5% but then goes on to say he's not even in the top 50%

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=20

TheScreamingEagles

TrèsDifficile said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

Blimey.. He starts by saying he's not in the top 5% but then goes on to say he's not even in the top 50%

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=20

Thanks. So George was right as he usually is.

kamski

MarqueeMark said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?

Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?

I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.

kle4

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

There are three ways to square that circle -

1. The company chooses lesser profit
2. The company cuts back on investment
3. The company cuts jobs

Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.

Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.

Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.

You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!

Prime Minister Aaron Bell will be generous towards me.

Who will be writing his wikipedia page if he wins I wonder:)

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.

Er - but only if the Tories are in power!

Selebian

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

Er, top 5%.....

Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.

TrèsDifficile

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"

with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.

Er - but only if the Tories are in power!

They’ll say if the Tories can do it then so can we.

MarqueeMark

kamski said:

MarqueeMark said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?

So ther eis
Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?

I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.

So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20

LibDems picked up 2/3 of the UKIP racist and fruit-cake vote!

wooliedyed

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20

They didn't do quite as well in Chichester! 2 gains for the Tories last night, one from the reds one from the yellows. Looking ominous for dec 12

wooliedyed

Morning all, labours manifesto unravelling quicker than an Ozzie budget!

Big_G_NorthWales

Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017

https://t.co/gVDhSzjZLG https://t.co/KMVuenIn6r

Sandpit

TrèsDifficile said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"

with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"

So, to put that in English, everyone’s pension funds investments are about to get completely screwed, as the government decide to either force share sales at an arbitrary price, or to simply take over shares in a private company at random?

MarqueeMark

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

humbugger said:

Good morning all.

The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?

If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.

Er - but only if the Tories are in power!

They’ll say if the Tories can do it then so can we.

Labour can say what they like. Whether people believe them though....

wooliedyed

Omnishamblesfesto!
Scrapping the married couples allowance is a totally insane thing to put in a manifesto. Slip it in your first budget but dont tell working class couples you are screwing them up front! It's as daft as gordons 10p rate clusterfeck

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Woolie. aye, they're trying to beat the baby-eating Tories at their own game.