TCPoliticalBetting said:

On topic.
The LDs reduced to 2 MSPs in Wales would be very bad for their "fightback". With Scotland also looking like a further decline in representatives for them and possibly in the London Assembly as well, Farron could be staring at a position where he has lost representatives in all of the 3 big battles of the May elections. Of course due to distractions elsewhere for Labour and the Conservatives, little attention will probably fall on Farron but he cannot claim to be making ground after taking over from Clegg. Instead he will be "managing the decline".

viewcode said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

viewcode said:

MyBurningEars said:

@viewcode

Hope you got some resolution on the flat, by the way. Best wishes on that front.

Thank you, tho' it may be overtaken by events: health problems have recently worsened and priorities may have to be rejigged.

Get well soon!

Thank you.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.

One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.

What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?

I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit.

I've certainly been critical of those who've been downbeat on Trump's chances, and not without reason. Even now, I think the betting markets underrate his position. But I did do a piece last week on why Kasich *should* be backed. Admittedly, the Cruz scandal hasn't taken off like I thought it would but it's still lingering like a bad smell. If Trump is to be stopped at the convention, Kasich seems to me to be the obvious person to do it.

Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.

One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.

What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?

I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit.
.

Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely

He could get there with Trump's delegates too. The relationship between who a delegate is obliged to vote for in the first round as against who they would naturally vote for given an open mind seems to be far from watertight.

I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.

I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

It seems strange to me how Nate Silver places so much blind belief on Betfair, a betting exchange located thousands and thousands of miles distant from American shores and played, by definition and by law, principally by non-Americans, whose knowledge of US politics and elections is somewhat limited.

One or other of these is calling this contest very wrongly.

What I would really liked to have heard from Nate Silver is - if not Trump then whom as between Cruz and Kasich? I would rather hope it would be the latter, having backed him as far out as 200/1 and having been largely ridiculed for doing so by a number of so-called experts on PB.com. Are you listening David Herdson and others?

I don't think I ever ridiculed you for taking a 200/1 bet on Kasich. There'd always have been trading value there at the least given Rubio's weaknesses. If I did then you may well have the last word and at a minimum are in a good position to trade out at a sizable profit.
.

Kasich would need all Cruz's delegates to back him, that is very unlikely

He could get there with Trump's delegates too. The relationship between who a delegate is obliged to vote for in the first round as against who they would naturally vote for given an open mind seems to be far from watertight.

I don't know why this is but my guess would be that in the decades since conventions actually picked the candidates, the party machines in the states have become much less powerful and as the event became a coronation and a jamboree, delegates were happy to go along for the ride, candidates were happy to let their control slip apart from on the first ballot (and it's only been the first ballot that's counted for many a year), and much more attention was paid to the primaries.

I've not seen much reporting on the opinion of the delegates who have been selected (not least because I think quite a lot haven't? - there are state conventions and all sorts to go through in many cases), but a lot will depend on how the mainstream can fight back against the Trumpets and Cruzers in getting their preferred delegates to Cleveland.

Trump will obviously be the leader in terms of delegates so why would any of his delegates switch to Kasich given Kasich has only won 1 state, it would have to be an avalanche of Trump delegates moving to Kasich to make a difference

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?

It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.

I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.

What are the unions and workers calling for?

My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

Alistair said:

The key thing about delegates is saying someone is an X delhate just means they have to vote for X in the first round, it says nothing about their politics. Every single one of them could be a Jeb Bush supporter.

So come round 2 everything is nothing, nothing is forbidden.

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?

It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.

I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.

What are the unions and workers calling for?

My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ownership until the market improves - in obvious analogy to what was done with the banks. Some would clearly be happiest with permanent public ownership, but that's not an official demand. Their main point is that it's unreasonable that after months of secret negotiaions, Tata suddenly announces and the Government accepts that a decision must happen within weeks.

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?

It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.

I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.

What are the unions and workers calling for?

My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt

Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?

It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.

I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.

What are the unions and workers calling for?

My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt

Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.

Perhaps but it at least was a way 'pour encourager les autres' if they do not sort out their act the next one to go bust could be them

Mortimer said:

Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?

david_herdson said:

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Can you imaging the harrumphing in the Mail and the Telegraph if Cameron had nodded through these EU steel tariffs and the cost of 4x4s had rocketed?

It's one of these situation where I've no idea what the right thing to do is, either for the locals or the nation.

I'm not even sure if there is a *right* answer: the choices are all poor.

What are the unions and workers calling for?

My understanding is that they and Labour are calling for temporary nationalisation with sufficient time to be given to find the least bad outcome in terms of a buyer willing to continue the plant or the Government deciding that the national interest justifies it continuing in public ow.

But it's not an obvious analogy with the banks.

If a core facilitation industry seizes up, the entire economy seizes up, whether that's finance, transport or whatever. If one major bank goes bankrupt then the knock-on effects for the entire economy are disastrous because so many individuals and other businesses would find their finances frozen. The same when Railtrack went bust: you simply can't stop the railways pending a solution.

By contrast, if a steel mill closes, you can source steel from elsewhere. Now, there might be an argument to be made on strategic national interests that you shouldn't; there might be an argument to say that for the needs of the local economy, you subsidise it until it becomes economic again; there might be an argument to keep it open for some other reason. But whatever reasons are put forward, they're not the same as those for the banks.

Not all banks were needed though, we could have let Northern Rock go bust without a calamity and of course the US let Lehmans go bankrupt

Hmm. Perhaps. There is a case to be made that the US letting Lehmans go bust did nothing to lighten the recession. Similarly, had Northern Rock just been shut down, the damage that would have done to the rest of the UK's financial sector - when various other banks were dangerously exposed - would have been at best considerable and at worst catastrophic. Letting NR go bust and then having to rescue HBOS and the rest would have looked (and been) pretty stupid.

Perhaps but it at least was a way 'pour encourager les autres' if they do not sort out their act the next one to go bust could be them

There wouldn't have been time for them to sort their act out. An unmanaged collapse of NR would have had a domino effect that ran through the entire industry.

Stark_Dawning said:

Mortimer said:

Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?

That's always been the hallmark of Labour in opposition - petty and arrogant in equal measure. With luck Mr Javid will have the strength to face down the protectionist Left and the Brexiteers with their plans to return us to the era of Sunny Jim and state intervention.

OldKingCole said:

Speedy said:

The long brewing Washington DC Sex Scandal from the previous decade is coming to the surface again:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/dc-madam-gag-order-added-to-scotus-docket-657276483519

So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it.
The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-28/dc-madams-attorney-says-call-log-bombshell-could-upend-presidential-race

Unlikely to be one of them in particular, unless ........

peter_from_putney said:

OGH is currently watching Burnley lose at Brighton.

A lifetime's ban will surely follow.

JackW said:

peter_from_putney said:

OGH is currently watching Burnley lose at Brighton.

A lifetime's ban will surely follow.

Ooopps ....

Burnley score ... over the line ... not given !!

OGH pulling his hair out ....

blackburn63 said:

perdix said:

blackburn63 said:

We're fast approaching the time when govt pays men to dig holes and then fill them up again. People, for whatever reason, don't want to buy British steel, Tata have realised this and they're off.

Betamax videos, chopper cycles, mangles, we don't buy or use them anymore.

I have enormous sympathy for the steelworkers but the resourceful will find something else to do, we all have to. Politicians don't have the bollox to tell the truth, they're too busy lying to get votes.

We need to be careful about writing off traditional industries. I remember the chatterati in the days of the big problems with the UK car industry which was poorly managed and subverted by striking unions (even under public ownership!). It was said that making cars was just a "metal bashing" activity which had no future. As we know, under foreign ownership the UK industry is booming. The industry globally is changing with the advent of electric cars (see esp Tesla) and driverless capability.

Steel is a different product but has a number of niche markets in which the Brits can and do excel.

I'm not writing off anything, I'm saying that the market will always decide. I've no idea who buys British steel and what they do with it, but its clear not many people buy it.

The comparison with the banks is false, this is a localised issue not a national one. I'd have let the banks fail too, it would be a shock to the system we all need.

JackW said:

JackW said:

peter_from_putney said:

OGH is currently watching Burnley lose at Brighton.

A lifetime's ban will surely follow.

Ooopps ....

Burnley score ... over the line ... not given !!

OGH pulling his hair out ....

Edit ... And now score .... hair back ....

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

OldKingCole said:

Speedy said:

The long brewing Washington DC Sex Scandal from the previous decade is coming to the surface again:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/dc-madam-gag-order-added-to-scotus-docket-657276483519

So far they have managed to keep which politicians where involved a secret for a decade thanks to a gag order, but the case is going to the supreme court to lift it.
The interesting thing is the claim from the attorney that one of the Presidential candidates is on the list of politicians:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-28/dc-madams-attorney-says-call-log-bombshell-could-upend-presidential-race

Unlikely to be one of them in particular, unless ........

Make a pick:

Hillary
Sanders
Cruz
Trump
Kasich

Which of them could be on the list ?

Hillary.

A lesbian sex scandal would top everything so far.

Mortimer said:

Jonathan said:

Mortimer said:

Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?

You're right, she's good value. It's refreshing to hear a Labour backbencher on the front foot.

The worst comment made IMHO was accusing the right of not liking steel workers. Just a horrid form of entirely untruthful class-based rubbish that I thought intelligent MPs like Nick Palmer had moved the Labour party away from.

Pulpstar said:

Crikey - the Saudis seem to have found a few pennies down the back of the sofa...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519536/Saudi-Arabia-planning-end-oil-age-creating-2-TRILLION-investment-fund-big-buy-Google-Apple-Microsoft.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, a pity her brain isn't so active.

Norm said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Mortimer said:

Listening to AQ on R4 - Jess Philips really is a perfect example of the unreasonable Labour anti-Tory populist rabble rousing MP isn't she?

That's always been the hallmark of Labour in opposition - petty and arrogant in equal measure. With luck Mr Javid will have the strength to face down the protectionist Left and the Brexiteers with their plans to return us to the era of Sunny Jim and state intervention.

I do not see why it has to be all or nothing. A one off tariff against steel dumping by the Chinese would hardly have marked a return to full time state intervention and protectionism. Free trade should also be fair trade. The ability occasionally to act in the interests of the UK is no bad thing.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, so she's a moron without a script. Maybe I'll warm to her if she stops finding the idea of discussing the high rate of male suicide laughable, or if she stops comparing a night out in Birmingham to the sexual molestations of New Year's Eve in Cologne.

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, so she's a moron without a script. Maybe I'll warm to her if she stops finding the idea of discussing the high rate of male suicide laughable, or if she stops comparing a night out in Birmingham to the sexual molestations of New Year's Eve in Cologne.