politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The moment when a major US party nominated a woman for Pres
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The moment when a major US party nominated a woman for President for the first time
Congratulations to Betfair and the other bookies who have been quick to settle long-standing US WH2016 bets as events have unfolded at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. It’s now official – Clinton versus Trump.
Comments
-
It's a pity that woman is Hillary...0
-
And she's already had 8 years in the White House
0 -
If she has another 8 years there will that make her the longest 'occupant' of that particular residence?Sunil_Prasannan said:And she's already had 8 years in the White House
0 -
Which woman would you have preferred?Sunil_Prasannan said:It's a pity that woman is Hillary...
0 -
Talking of women - the numbers for May & Davidson in that Scottish YouGov poll were excellent - heck, even Labour voters think Davidson is doing well (+58) and even SNP voters rate her as net 'well' (+8)
May is enjoying an expectations honeymoon, with Con (+40), Lab (+20) and Lib Dem (+29) voters all thinking she'll be a better PM than Cameron. Only SNP voters are evenly split (±0). Middle class English ladies more acceptable than posh boys? The striking thing in all the May polling numbers is the low level of 'don't knows' - she's clearly a known quantity....
It is curious that SNP voters have the highest positive rating for Corbyn (net -23) - perhaps they don't have the best interests of Labour at heart - or perhaps its the old 'Red Labour' vote that have shifted to the SNP....?0 -
An ex-President's wife. How third world.0
-
Mix of both I imagine. The SNP is a broader church than any other mainstream British party, but clearly has a very strong left-wing element. This, though, is far more disciplined than the English left because independence conquers all.CarlottaVance said:Talking of women - the numbers for May & Davidson in that Scottish YouGov poll were excellent - heck, even Labour voters think Davidson is doing well (+58) and even SNP voters rate her as net 'well' (+8)
May is enjoying an expectations honeymoon, with Con (+40), Lab (+20) and Lib Dem (+29) voters all thinking she'll be a better PM than Cameron. Only SNP voters are evenly split (±0). Middle class English ladies more acceptable than posh boys? The striking thing in all the May polling numbers is the low level of 'don't knows' - she's clearly a known quantity....
It is curious that SNP voters have the highest positive rating for Corbyn (net -23) - perhaps they don't have the best interests of Labour at heart - or perhaps its the old 'Red Labour' vote that have shifted to the SNP....?
0 -
Good question.CarlottaVance said:
Which woman would you have preferred?Sunil_Prasannan said:It's a pity that woman is Hillary...
addendum: indeed,who would you have preferred in general?0 -
Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?0
-
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
After playing this market like a total tool I made a grand total of £20.30 profit on Hillary.
Woohoo.
Still, kudos to Betfair for settling et al.0 -
yeh – another Clinton.0 -
I was vaguely surprised the Republicans did not move to shoot both the African American and female foxes under GW Bush. Dick Cheney could have stood down on health grounds midway through the second term with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (Condi) replacing him as vice president. Rinse and repeat for the top job with six months to go. Perhaps politicians are not that cynical -- or they feared it would make Obama or Hillary more electable by removing the fear factor.CarlottaVance said:
Which woman would you have preferred?Sunil_Prasannan said:It's a pity that woman is Hillary...
0 -
Victoria Woodhull.CarlottaVance said:
Which woman would you have preferred?Sunil_Prasannan said:It's a pity that woman is Hillary...
0 -
It's still not a very well worded question. "Do you think [X] is doing well or badly as [job]" leaves too much discretion to the person answering over what 'well or badly' means: is it how they'd perform in a job appraisal or well or badly in delivering what I'd like to see. I'd much prefer 'favourable or unfavourable' as the options.CarlottaVance said:Talking of women - the numbers for May & Davidson in that Scottish YouGov poll were excellent - heck, even Labour voters think Davidson is doing well (+58) and even SNP voters rate her as net 'well' (+8)
May is enjoying an expectations honeymoon, with Con (+40), Lab (+20) and Lib Dem (+29) voters all thinking she'll be a better PM than Cameron. Only SNP voters are evenly split (±0). Middle class English ladies more acceptable than posh boys? The striking thing in all the May polling numbers is the low level of 'don't knows' - she's clearly a known quantity....
It is curious that SNP voters have the highest positive rating for Corbyn (net -23) - perhaps they don't have the best interests of Labour at heart - or perhaps its the old 'Red Labour' vote that have shifted to the SNP....?
All the same, it's better than 'approve / disapprove' and the general picture is pretty clear.
On Scottish matters, it also stands out that with Labour voters, Dugdale's score is +12, Sturgeon's score is +10 and Davidson's score is +58 - and that's after the mass defections from Lab to SNP over the last two years. How is Labour to recover with Scottish and UK leaders performing so badly.0 -
Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.0
-
The author, Guy Pelham Benson, is an American journalist and pundit. He is a contributor for Fox News, political editor of Townhall.com, and a conservative talk radio personality. WikipediaPlatoSaid said:0 -
We'll probably have to wait longer than that for a female Labour PMToryJim said:
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
There'd be a tie with Bill.Ally_B said:
If she has another 8 years there will that make her the longest 'occupant' of that particular residence?Sunil_Prasannan said:And she's already had 8 years in the White House
The longest serving President is Franklin Delano Roosevelt at 4,422 days.Roosevelt died on the 83rd day of his fourth term on April 12, 1945.0 -
On topic, there are probably about 70-80m women constitutionally eligible to stand for the office of US president. The first chosen was a former first lady. What are the chances, eh?
Yes, of course it's not just Hillary who traded on former connections - would George W Bush have become president had his dad not been there before him (and would *he* have become president had his father not been a senator)? - but all the same, marrying your way to the White House doesn't strike me as a great advance for feminism.0 -
I'd be pretty sure there'll be some White House staff who live on site that have been there longer.Ally_B said:
If she has another 8 years there will that make her the longest 'occupant' of that particular residence?Sunil_Prasannan said:And she's already had 8 years in the White House
In terms of presidents and their immediate families, yes, it would. She would need a second term though and I doubt she'll get one; she may well not even get a first.0 -
Walpole is usually regarded as the first Prime Minister, with his term starting in 1721, so we only had to wait 258 years (also, the UK didn't come into being until 1801 so on that score, it'd be 178 years).ToryJim said:
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion0 -
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
0 -
Did she actually achieve much in either job? Both were achieved one way or another through the usual American route of money and networks. Sure, she had to win the NY primary but she's always had the machine behind her which has given her a massive advantage (though not massive enough vs Obama).foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
She may be tolerably passable, she may be awful. In fact, there's more chance that she'll go down as part of the first husband and wife pairing to both be impeached as president than that she'll be 'an excellent president'.0 -
Typo, my fat fingers hit the wrong numberdavid_herdson said:
Walpole is usually regarded as the first Prime Minister, with his term starting in 1721, so we only had to wait 258 years (also, the UK didn't come into being until 1801 so on that score, it'd be 178 years).ToryJim said:
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
Still waiting on Paddy to settle a Trump bet - couldn't be settled till 27th according to the spondoogle I got at cust servCasino_Royale said:After playing this market like a total tool I made a grand total of £20.30 profit on Hillary.
Woohoo.
Still, kudos to Betfair for settling et al.
0 -
Trouble is, this is a time when no one is interested in hearing from experts. I hope not, but I fear she is going to lose.DavidL said:
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
0 -
The US did not acquire its existing boundaries until 1959 with the accession of Hawaii.david_herdson said:
Walpole is usually regarded as the first Prime Minister, with his term starting in 1721, so we only had to wait 258 years (also, the UK didn't come into being until 1801 so on that score, it'd be 178 years).ToryJim said:
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion0 -
I'm not sure you can really describe it as 'marrying your way to the White House'?david_herdson said:On topic, there are probably about 70-80m women constitutionally eligible to stand for the office of US president. The first chosen was a former first lady. What are the chances, eh?
Yes, of course it's not just Hillary who traded on former connections - would George W Bush have become president had his dad not been there before him (and would *he* have become president had his father not been a senator)? - but all the same, marrying your way to the White House doesn't strike me as a great advance for feminism.
She got married in 1975 to Bill Clinton. At the time he had failed to win election to the House of Representatives the year before. She left DC to go live in Arkansas!0 -
On reflection George HW Bush comes pretty close. VP for 8 years, head of CIA, ambassador, congressman, a long and distinguished career before being President.rottenborough said:
Trouble is, this is a time when no one is interested in hearing from experts. I hope not, but I fear she is going to lose.DavidL said:
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
What do you think Hillary is an "expert" in? She is certainly more of a technocrat than Trump. I think that ultimately could be an advantage if she can persuade people that makes her the safer choice.0 -
AFP
#UPDATE: Deutsche Bank second quarter net profit tumbles by 98% https://t.co/4qmWYGEg4j0 -
In as far as she didn't know that Bill Clinton would be president, true. In that her career was launched and maintained by having been First Lady, I would certainly describe it as that.rkrkrk said:
I'm not sure you can really describe it as 'marrying your way to the White House'?david_herdson said:On topic, there are probably about 70-80m women constitutionally eligible to stand for the office of US president. The first chosen was a former first lady. What are the chances, eh?
Yes, of course it's not just Hillary who traded on former connections - would George W Bush have become president had his dad not been there before him (and would *he* have become president had his father not been a senator)? - but all the same, marrying your way to the White House doesn't strike me as a great advance for feminism.
She got married in 1975 to Bill Clinton. At the time he had failed to win election to the House of Representatives the year before. She left DC to go live in Arkansas!
Would she have got there by herself? Who knows? But the fact remains that of all the naturally born women over the age of 35, it's a hell of a coincidence that the first to be nominated is related to a former president.
(As said earlier, this isn't unusual for American politics, other than the relationship being by marriage rather than descent).0 -
More from the front line of delusion:
"We could be a few months or years away from the most progressive government since Clement Attlee’s post-WWII government delivered the NHS, a national education system, nationalised transport and energy, and rolled out the biggest social housing programme in our history. This is an electoral choice that the UK hasn’t had the opportunity to make in decades."
(http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/14/working-class-britain-is-taking-its-power-back-and-the-establishment-is-freaking-out/)0 -
No, but they have had presidents since 1789.No_Offence_Alan said:
The US did not acquire its existing boundaries until 1959 with the accession of Hawaii.david_herdson said:
Walpole is usually regarded as the first Prime Minister, with his term starting in 1721, so we only had to wait 258 years (also, the UK didn't come into being until 1801 so on that score, it'd be 178 years).ToryJim said:
They haven't elected their first of any description yet. Assuming they do so it won't be long until the next one. Remember the UK had male PMs for 278 years before Thatcher. We didn't have to wait anywhere near as long for the secondtlg86 said:Let's be honest, there will always be an asterisk next to Clinton's name. How long before the US elects its first female president who has not previously been first lady?
0 -
VPs can figure, importantly sometimes, sadly. In particular I'm thinking of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. These guys were rather important and came up to scratch.
Tim Kaine too looks good to me.
Have the Democrats cornered the honesty/sanity market?0 -
If she wins, Hillary Clinton will be a great president for the simple fact of not being Donald Trump. Thus saving America, the wider world and, indeed the Republican Party from that grisly fate.0
-
Politics is always about negotiation and networking, and particularly so in the USA where the Constitution deliberatly sets up the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of government as restraints on each other, even before the division of responsibilities between Federal and State governments. Clinton knows the ropes, while Trump is a blowhard who will soon find that he lacks the skills needed to network support.david_herdson said:
Did she actually achieve much in either job? Both were achieved one way or another through the usual American route of money and networks. Sure, she had to win the NY primary but she's always had the machine behind her which has given her a massive advantage (though not massive enough vs Obama).foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
She may be tolerably passable, she may be awful. In fact, there's more chance that she'll go down as part of the first husband and wife pairing to both be impeached as president than that she'll be 'an excellent president'.
As Bertrand Russell wrote in 1933 on the rise of the Nazis: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."0 -
Pretty sure there would be a lot fewer if you asked Rod!david_herdson said:On topic, there are probably about 70-80m women constitutionally eligible to stand for the office of US president. The first chosen was a former first lady. What are the chances, eh?
0 -
Johnson too had huge experience, mostly in Congress but right up to Senate majority leader.DavidL said:
On reflection George HW Bush comes pretty close. VP for 8 years, head of CIA, ambassador, congressman, a long and distinguished career before being President.rottenborough said:
Trouble is, this is a time when no one is interested in hearing from experts. I hope not, but I fear she is going to lose.DavidL said:
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
What do you think Hillary is an "expert" in? She is certainly more of a technocrat than Trump. I think that ultimately could be an advantage if she can persuade people that makes her the safer choice.0 -
Hillary Clinton is awful. Truly awful, on the wrong side of most issues, and it doesn't advance the case of women by election someone as painfully incapable as she is just because she has a vagina.
But she isn't Trump. This election reminds me of Sarkozy vs Leave Pen in France. One choice is nuts, the other merely appalling0 -
and interestingly, he got stuff done. he knew how to pull the levers and do across the aisle deals.david_herdson said:
Johnson too had huge experience, mostly in Congress but right up to Senate majority leader.DavidL said:
On reflection George HW Bush comes pretty close. VP for 8 years, head of CIA, ambassador, congressman, a long and distinguished career before being President.rottenborough said:
Trouble is, this is a time when no one is interested in hearing from experts. I hope not, but I fear she is going to lose.DavidL said:
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
What do you think Hillary is an "expert" in? She is certainly more of a technocrat than Trump. I think that ultimately could be an advantage if she can persuade people that makes her the safer choice.0 -
True, although that's one reason that Trump doesn't particularly scare me, in that he'd probably find himself up against a congressional brick wall throughout. His foreign policy, on the other hand, would be a red line. But still, I see little in Hillary beyond a machine politician. Were she a man, she would be utterly unremarkable.foxinsoxuk said:
Politics is always about negotiation and networking, and particularly so in the USA where the Constitution deliberatly sets up the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of government as restraints on each other, even before the division of responsibilities between Federal and State governments. Clinton knows the ropes, while Trump is a blowhard who will soon find that he lacks the skills needed to network support.david_herdson said:
Did she actually achieve much in either job? Both were achieved one way or another through the usual American route of money and networks. Sure, she had to win the NY primary but she's always had the machine behind her which has given her a massive advantage (though not massive enough vs Obama).foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
She may be tolerably passable, she may be awful. In fact, there's more chance that she'll go down as part of the first husband and wife pairing to both be impeached as president than that she'll be 'an excellent president'.
As Bertrand Russell wrote in 1933 on the rise of the Nazis: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."0 -
Japan demonstrates better than anyone the failure of "stimulus" to do anything other than drive up the national debt.DavidL said:
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion
Shortly to be replicated elsewhere in an international round of serial devaluations. Each devaluation providing a short term fix to cover up serious untackled economic problems.0 -
No executive experience though. Bush, Hoover and Hillary had and have both.david_herdson said:
Johnson too had huge experience, mostly in Congress but right up to Senate majority leader.DavidL said:
On reflection George HW Bush comes pretty close. VP for 8 years, head of CIA, ambassador, congressman, a long and distinguished career before being President.rottenborough said:
Trouble is, this is a time when no one is interested in hearing from experts. I hope not, but I fear she is going to lose.DavidL said:
I think it is a bit premature to say that she will be an excellent President but there is little doubt that she is the most obviously qualified for the role (in terms of prior experience) since Hoover. But that experience comes at a price and in Hillary's case that is a wagon train of baggage.foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
What do you think Hillary is an "expert" in? She is certainly more of a technocrat than Trump. I think that ultimately could be an advantage if she can persuade people that makes her the safer choice.0 -
They didn't notice that the majority of the large influx of labour members are well off AB professionals or their student kids and that working class Britain just voted to leave and will probably join the kippers to make sure they get it...rottenborough said:More from the front line of delusion:
"We could be a few months or years away from the most progressive government since Clement Attlee’s post-WWII government delivered the NHS, a national education system, nationalised transport and energy, and rolled out the biggest social housing programme in our history. This is an electoral choice that the UK hasn’t had the opportunity to make in decades."
(http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/14/working-class-britain-is-taking-its-power-back-and-the-establishment-is-freaking-out/)0 -
Good morning, everyone.0
-
Sanity yes. Honesty?Toms said:VPs can figure, importantly sometimes, sadly. In particular I'm thinking of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. These guys were rather important and came up to scratch.
Tim Kaine too looks good to me.
Have the Democrats cornered the honesty/sanity market?0 -
Twitter still burning $1 million a day...
"But the micro-blogging site managed to shrink its quarterly loss to $107m(£84.7m) from $136m last year. "0 -
If she was a man she would be Richard Nixon. He also rose on the back of a far more charismatic president, Dwight Eisenhower, just as she rose on the back of Bill. Both were capable machine politicians but neither natural campaigners and if Hillary does win the presidency it will be, like Nixon; on her second attempt both previously being thwarted by a younger, more appealing candidate. Bill made a good speech for her last night as he always does but Hillary needs to make here own case for her candidacy on Thursday, that is the key moment of the week as Trump's speech was last week. The rest of the convention is just the warm up actdavid_herdson said:
True, although that's one reason that Trump doesn't particularly scare me, in that he'd probably find himself up against a congressional brick wall throughout. His foreign policy, on the other hand, would be a red line. But still, I see little in Hillary beyond a machine politician. Were she a man, she would be utterly unremarkable.foxinsoxuk said:
Politics is always about negotiation and networking, and particularly so in the USA where the Constitution deliberatly sets up the Executive, Legislative and Judicial arms of government as restraints on each other, even before the division of responsibilities between Federal and State governments. Clinton knows the ropes, while Trump is a blowhard who will soon find that he lacks the skills needed to network support.david_herdson said:
Did she actually achieve much in either job? Both were achieved one way or another through the usual American route of money and networks. Sure, she had to win the NY primary but she's always had the machine behind her which has given her a massive advantage (though not massive enough vs Obama).foxinsoxuk said:Hillary is not just an ex-First Lady, she has had a significant political career in her own right as Senator and Secretary of State. She will be an excellent President.
She may be tolerably passable, she may be awful. In fact, there's more chance that she'll go down as part of the first husband and wife pairing to both be impeached as president than that she'll be 'an excellent president'.
As Bertrand Russell wrote in 1933 on the rise of the Nazis: "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."0 -
I see life is tough for Doctor's in the NHS, no wonder junior Doctor's had to strike ..............
One doctor made an extra £375,000 last year on top of their salary.
Hospitals blamed a consultants shortage amid rising demand, but ministers said the way doctors were paid must change.
Payments of about £600 in overtime for a four-hour shift are common - three to four times what consultants get normally - but there was some evidence of payments around the £1,000 mark.
1.£374,999: Unnamed consultant at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
2.£205,408: Unnamed consultant at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust
3.£183,204: Unnamed consultant at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-368988810 -
Indeed, apart from Bob Dole I don't think any living Republican party former presidents or nominees will vote for TrumpFF43 said:If she wins, Hillary Clinton will be a great president for the simple fact of not being Donald Trump. Thus saving America, the wider world and, indeed the Republican Party from that grisly fate.
0 -
I didn't mind her a few years ago, and was impressed at how she dealt with Bill's dalliances.RochdalePioneers said:Hillary Clinton is awful. Truly awful, on the wrong side of most issues, and it doesn't advance the case of women by election someone as painfully incapable as she is just because she has a vagina.
But she isn't Trump. This election reminds me of Sarkozy vs Leave Pen in France. One choice is nuts, the other merely appalling
However, the more I see her on TV nowadays, the more I dislike her. I think she's dishonest, a crook and a transparent fake. My sympathies are with the Bernie supporters who seem to find her even less appealing than I do.0 -
There were a couple of charts that surprised me in Robert's excellent piece called the Discontented. One was a chart showing the GDP per capita growth since 2007 which showed Japan had grown significantly faster than the UK over that period.foxinsoxuk said:
Japan demonstrates better than anyone the failure of "stimulus" to do anything other than drive up the national debt.DavidL said:
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion
Shortly to be replicated elsewhere in an international round of serial devaluations. Each devaluation providing a short term fix to cover up serious untackled economic problems.
http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gdp-per-capita-constant-prices-change-2015-v-2007.jpg
The other was median Japanese income which showed a major fall over a similar period: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/japan-workers-real-disposable-income-2003-2016.jpg
I fear Japan are just a decade further down the curve than we are and that we may be in all too similar a position in 10 years time.0 -
A Tuesday By-Election result:
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
The Hangers & Forest (East Hampshire) result:
CON: 45.3% (-23.7)
LDEM: 43.6% (+43.6)
JUST: 7.9% (+7.9)
LAB: 3.3% (-9.7)0 -
GSK investing £275m in the UK. What's Brexit?0
-
-
Think you mean Chirac?RochdalePioneers said:Hillary Clinton is awful. Truly awful, on the wrong side of most issues, and it doesn't advance the case of women by election someone as painfully incapable as she is just because she has a vagina.
But she isn't Trump. This election reminds me of Sarkozy vs Leave Pen in France. One choice is nuts, the other merely appalling0 -
a cynic might suggest "an opportunity to escape proper scrutiny and regulation"MaxPB said:GSK investing £275m in the UK. What's Brexit?
0 -
"Corgasm Firing Blanks Here"logical_song said:A Tuesday By-Election result:
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
The Hangers & Forest (East Hampshire) result:
CON: 45.3% (-23.7)
LDEM: 43.6% (+43.6)
JUST: 7.9% (+7.9)
LAB: 3.3% (-9.7)0 -
To be honest , maybe we should be a little flexible on this one. Gosh, being human is tricky.DavidL said:
Sanity yes. Honesty?Toms said:VPs can figure, importantly sometimes, sadly. In particular I'm thinking of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. These guys were rather important and came up to scratch.
Tim Kaine too looks good to me.
Have the Democrats cornered the honesty/sanity market?0 -
On present polling it could well be Sarkozy v Marine Le Penalex. said:
Think you mean Chirac?RochdalePioneers said:Hillary Clinton is awful. Truly awful, on the wrong side of most issues, and it doesn't advance the case of women by election someone as painfully incapable as she is just because she has a vagina.
But she isn't Trump. This election reminds me of Sarkozy vs Leave Pen in France. One choice is nuts, the other merely appalling0 -
Unlikely, they are leveraging the new half rate corporation tax for research and development.dugarbandier said:
a cynic might suggest "an opportunity to escape proper scrutiny and regulation"MaxPB said:GSK investing £275m in the UK. What's Brexit?
0 -
I still can't get past JP Orourke's comment that Hillary is wrong about everything but she is wrong within the normal parameters.Toms said:
To be honest , maybe we should be a little flexible on this one. Gosh, being human is tricky.DavidL said:
Sanity yes. Honesty?Toms said:VPs can figure, importantly sometimes, sadly. In particular I'm thinking of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. These guys were rather important and came up to scratch.
Tim Kaine too looks good to me.
Have the Democrats cornered the honesty/sanity market?
Just sums it up perfectly for me. Sane America is not being given a choice here.0 -
Betting related post, in a Times article, headlined
'We won’t talk about trade until after Brexit, says US'
Liam Fox says this
Speaking in Washington, Dr Fox appeared to tone down his earlier optimistic rhetoric on trade, saying that “we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU, which we will be for probably the next two years, with an exit in early 2019. We want to have discussions and to scope out any possible deals that we might want to do immediately after that.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx0 -
Lol. Hopefully we'll get a chance to find out.DavidL said:
I still can't get past JP Orourke's comment that Hillary is wrong about everything but she is wrong within the normal parameters.Toms said:
To be honest , maybe we should be a little flexible on this one. Gosh, being human is tricky.DavidL said:
Sanity yes. Honesty?Toms said:VPs can figure, importantly sometimes, sadly. In particular I'm thinking of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. These guys were rather important and came up to scratch.
Tim Kaine too looks good to me.
Have the Democrats cornered the honesty/sanity market?
Just sums it up perfectly for me. Sane America is not being given a choice here.0 -
From Tim Bale
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/why-dont-people-vote-google
"This so-called “paradox of voting” has intrigued political scientists – especially those who like to see themselves as belonging to the “rational choice” school – for ages. The answer most commonly arrived at is that those who do turn out must derive some utility, however indirect, from the act of voting..."0 -
Off Topic. - In depth profile of Andy Burnham. – check out the URL - harsh, but fair.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/27/missing-presumed-lost-andy-burnhams-spine/
0 -
Harsh but fair from Ian Dunt
Owen Smith is a lightweight and no opposition leader
He resembles an actor who has been turned down for a Halifax ad
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/owen-smith-is-a-lightweight-and-no-opposition-leader-hhd2dmmf30 -
The Halifax do not suggest spending 200bn that they haven't got.. bit harsh on the Halifax imhoTheScreamingEagles said:Harsh but fair from Ian Dunt
Owen Smith is a lightweight and no opposition leader
He resembles an actor who has been turned down for a Halifax ad
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/owen-smith-is-a-lightweight-and-no-opposition-leader-hhd2dmmf30 -
I wonder whatever happened to Howard from the Halifax adverts?0
-
Got dumped from the adverts during the credit crisis, then left Halifax a few years ago.FrancisUrquhart said:I wonder whatever happened to Howard from the Halifax adverts?
Now sure what he does these days, probably been on Celebrity Arse Swap or something0 -
Good morning all.DavidL said:
There were a couple of charts that surprised me in Robert's excellent piece called the Discontented. One was a chart showing the GDP per capita growth since 2007 which showed Japan had grown significantly faster than the UK over that period.foxinsoxuk said:
Japan demonstrates better than anyone the failure of "stimulus" to do anything other than drive up the national debt.DavidL said:
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion
Shortly to be replicated elsewhere in an international round of serial devaluations. Each devaluation providing a short term fix to cover up serious untackled economic problems.
http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gdp-per-capita-constant-prices-change-2015-v-2007.jpg
The other was median Japanese income which showed a major fall over a similar period: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/japan-workers-real-disposable-income-2003-2016.jpg
I fear Japan are just a decade further down the curve than we are and that we may be in all too similar a position in 10 years time.
Minor nit David - the second graph shows median disposable income. It's not quite the same thing.0 -
Been a long time coming, but good news
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/america-to-end-ban-on-british-meat-h9nqwm39j0 -
ICYMI
Times/YouGov poll. Changes since last week. Con 40% (nc) Lab 28% (-1) UKIP 13% (+1) LD: 9% (nc)
Loving how some Corbynistas are spinning a 12% deficit as good news, 'shows ICM is an outlier' that kinda stuff.
As if a 12% lead wouldn't see Labour get smashed like the Bulgars at the battle of Kleidon0 -
"might want to do immediately after that"TheScreamingEagles said:Betting related post, in a Times article, headlined
'We won’t talk about trade until after Brexit, says US'
Liam Fox says this
Speaking in Washington, Dr Fox appeared to tone down his earlier optimistic rhetoric on trade, saying that “we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU, which we will be for probably the next two years, with an exit in early 2019. We want to have discussions and to scope out any possible deals that we might want to do immediately after that.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx
Might want to begin to negotiate immediately after that...0 -
Liam Fox isn't exactly inspiring confidence at the moment.alex. said:
"might want to do immediately after that"TheScreamingEagles said:Betting related post, in a Times article, headlined
'We won’t talk about trade until after Brexit, says US'
Liam Fox says this
Speaking in Washington, Dr Fox appeared to tone down his earlier optimistic rhetoric on trade, saying that “we cannot negotiate any new trade deals as long as we are part of the EU, which we will be for probably the next two years, with an exit in early 2019. We want to have discussions and to scope out any possible deals that we might want to do immediately after that.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-spurns-offer-of-trade-talks-wsk6gc5wx
Might want to begin to negotiate immediately after that...
However, Canada corrected Dr Fox after he suggested that “very fruitful” bilateral trade talks with Ottowa had begun. Chrystia Freeland, the international trade minister, said that the talks were “positive” but they were largely about Canada’s deal with the EU as a whole.0 -
Sounds exactly like the Halifax to me. Isn't that what started this whole mess...?SquareRoot said:
The Halifax do not suggest spending 200bn that they haven't got.. bit harsh on the Halifax imhoTheScreamingEagles said:Harsh but fair from Ian Dunt
Owen Smith is a lightweight and no opposition leader
He resembles an actor who has been turned down for a Halifax ad
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/owen-smith-is-a-lightweight-and-no-opposition-leader-hhd2dmmf30 -
Close but no cigar.logical_song said:A Tuesday By-Election result:
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
The Hangers & Forest (East Hampshire) result:
CON: 45.3% (-23.7)
LDEM: 43.6% (+43.6)
JUST: 7.9% (+7.9)
LAB: 3.3% (-9.7)0 -
I fear you may be right. Japan was the first to move to zero interest rates and large doses of QE to get things going, and they've been trying and failing for twenty years now. Despite all the free money there is no sign of any inflation; indeed deflation remains a continuing risk. If you look at the Japanese public debt figures they are beyond horrific and are now unbelievable: it is impossible to see any prospect of the rising debt being halted let alone put into reverse. It's only the fact that most of it is held internally that has stopped a collapse to date. All they can do is keep announcing larger and larger injections of 'new money' in the hope that it turns things round.DavidL said:
There were a couple of charts that surprised me in Robert's excellent piece called the Discontented. One was a chart showing the GDP per capita growth since 2007 which showed Japan had grown significantly faster than the UK over that period.foxinsoxuk said:
Japan demonstrates better than anyone the failure of "stimulus" to do anything other than drive up the national debt.DavidL said:
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion
Shortly to be replicated elsewhere in an international round of serial devaluations. Each devaluation providing a short term fix to cover up serious untackled economic problems.
http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gdp-per-capita-constant-prices-change-2015-v-2007.jpg
The other was median Japanese income which showed a major fall over a similar period: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/japan-workers-real-disposable-income-2003-2016.jpg
I fear Japan are just a decade further down the curve than we are and that we may be in all too similar a position in 10 years time.
It is hard to see this ending happily.0 -
True to a point. Still a massive step up from Corbyn though!TheScreamingEagles said:Harsh but fair from Ian Dunt
Owen Smith is a lightweight and no opposition leader
He resembles an actor who has been turned down for a Halifax ad
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/owen-smith-is-a-lightweight-and-no-opposition-leader-hhd2dmmf30 -
It is a Clinton thread ....kle4 said:
Close but no cigar.logical_song said:A Tuesday By-Election result:
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
The Hangers & Forest (East Hampshire) result:
CON: 45.3% (-23.7)
LDEM: 43.6% (+43.6)
JUST: 7.9% (+7.9)
LAB: 3.3% (-9.7)0 -
Liar liar, pants on fire....
Stephen Kinnock has been accused of hiding his daughter’s private education during his selection process for his seat. In 2014 Kinnock told Wales Online that “it is highly misleading to say that our daughter attended a private school”. Except Johanna Kinnock did attend a private school from 2013 to 2015, the prestigious £29,000-a-year Atlantic College in the Vale of Glamorgan.
http://order-order.com/2016/07/27/242524/
The fact they wouldn't have selected him if he had told the truth is rather pathetic.0 -
Like!JackW said:
It is a Clinton thread ....kle4 said:
Close but no cigar.logical_song said:A Tuesday By-Election result:
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
The Hangers & Forest (East Hampshire) result:
CON: 45.3% (-23.7)
LDEM: 43.6% (+43.6)
JUST: 7.9% (+7.9)
LAB: 3.3% (-9.7)
:-)0 -
Amazing what's possible post-Brexit. The great national constipation is being purged.PlatoSaid said:Been a long time coming, but good news
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/america-to-end-ban-on-british-meat-h9nqwm39j0 -
What an epitaph ....foxinsoxuk said:True to a point. Still a massive step up from Corbyn though!
0 -
Morning all
I seem to be in a minority of one here but I quite like HRC. I don't have an issue with emails or anything like that and we've all said and done things we might regret or wish had been done differently. As a result, I've little concern with America under her stewardship. Trump, on the other hand, is madder than a box of frogs.
On matters Halifax, Mrs Stodge is unimpressed with the voice of Wilma Flintstone but I did point out the original speaker has probably been dead 30 years or more. Nice to see a distant echo of my distant childhood.
Yesterday's ICM poll got the Conservatives on here over-excited but Stodge's Tenth Law of Politics states "if you want big changes, have a big defeat, not a big victory". The personal and political humiliation of a heavy defeat (and I won't use portside analogies) will have an impact just as the magnitude of the 1997 defeat affected Conservative politics.
One other thought for the morning - I do sense the tax cutting brigade think they have an ally at No.11 and I wonder if we will see a move away from the nuanced policies of the Coalition years which concentrated on raising personal allowances and instead Hammond's first Budget will go straight for cuts in tax rates across the board.
We still have a mountain of debt and a large deficit but I suppose the fans of Laffer will scream that any tax cut will bring in more revenue and the wealthy are already paying so much (not surprising, they earn more so they pay more) they need a break. My local Government financial friend is very much of the view the 2017-18 round will be brutal and he's already planning for up to 15% reductions in Government funding.0 -
Like father like son. Kinnockio junior.FrancisUrquhart said:Liar liar, pants on fire....
Stephen Kinnock has been accused of hiding his daughter’s private education during his selection process for his seat. In 2014 Kinnock told Wales Online that “it is highly misleading to say that our daughter attended a private school”. Except Johanna Kinnock did attend a private school from 2013 to 2015, the prestigious £29,000-a-year Atlantic College in the Vale of Glamorgan.
http://order-order.com/2016/07/27/242524/
The fact they wouldn't have selected him if he had told the truth is rather pathetic.0 -
It's one of those vicious circles. Japanese consumers won't spend their money (their savings rate is 3x the UK's). Therefore domestic demand remains low (not helped by their demographics), therefore companies don't want to invest, and see no need to raise wages. With historically low interest rates and no wage increases, Japanese folk feel they have to save heroic amounts of money for their retirement. So it goes.IanB2 said:
I fear you may be right. Japan was the first to move to zero interest rates and large doses of QE to get things going, and they've been trying and failing for twenty years now. Despite all the free money there is no sign of any inflation; indeed deflation remains a continuing risk. If you look at the Japanese public debt figures they are beyond horrific and are now unbelievable: it is impossible to see any prospect of the rising debt being halted let alone put into reverse. It's only the fact that most of it is held internally that has stopped a collapse to date. All they can do is keep announcing larger and larger injections of 'new money' in the hope that it turns things round.DavidL said:
There were a couple of charts that surprised me in Robert's excellent piece called the Discontented. One was a chart showing the GDP per capita growth since 2007 which showed Japan had grown significantly faster than the UK over that period.foxinsoxuk said:
Japan demonstrates better than anyone the failure of "stimulus" to do anything other than drive up the national debt.DavidL said:
I am sure I vaguely recall someone clever saying something like repeating the same activity again and again whilst expecting different results is the conduct of an idiot. Obviously he was not Japanese.PlatoSaid said:As predicted
BREAKING: Japan announces economic stimulus package worth more than $265 billion
Shortly to be replicated elsewhere in an international round of serial devaluations. Each devaluation providing a short term fix to cover up serious untackled economic problems.
http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gdp-per-capita-constant-prices-change-2015-v-2007.jpg
The other was median Japanese income which showed a major fall over a similar period: http://www.thstailwinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/japan-workers-real-disposable-income-2003-2016.jpg
I fear Japan are just a decade further down the curve than we are and that we may be in all too similar a position in 10 years time.
It is hard to see this ending happily.
We have a huge advantage over the Japanese; Brits are feckless consumers under almost all circumstances. It's a mad world; thrift is bad, extravagance is good.
0 -
The email thing is the most concerning thing as far as I'm concerned, because if it wasn't her being sinister it was her bring an idiot, I don't accept 'we've all done things we might regret' as mitigating that stupidity either, as I have no issue holding those who seek public office, and in particular the most powerful office in the world, to a higher standard than I woukd myself.stodge said:Morning all
I seem to be in a minority of one here but I quite like HRC. I don't have an issue with emails or anything like that and we've all said and done things we might regret or wish had been done differently. As a result, I've little concern with America under her stewardship. Trump, on the other hand, is madder than a box of frogs.
On matters Halifax, Mrs Stodge is unimpressed with the voice of Wilma Flintstone but I did point out the original speaker has probably been dead 30 years or more. Nice to see a distant echo of my distant childhood.
Yesterday's ICM poll got the Conservatives on here over-excited but Stodge's Tenth Law of Politics states "if you want big changes, have a big defeat, not a big victory". The personal and political humiliation of a heavy defeat (and I won't use portside analogies) will have an impact just as the magnitude of the 1997 defeat affected Conservative politics.
One other thought for the morning - I do sense the tax cutting brigade think they have an ally at No.11 and I wonder if we will see a move away from the nuanced policies of the Coalition years which concentrated on raising personal allowances and instead Hammond's first Budget will go straight for cuts in tax rates across the board.
We still have a mountain of debt and a large deficit but I suppose the fans of Laffer will scream that any tax cut will bring in more revenue and the wealthy are already paying so much (not surprising, they earn more so they pay more) they need a break. My local Government financial friend is very much of the view the 2017-18 round will be brutal and he's already planning for up to 15% reductions in Government funding.
But she's obviously superior to trump despite bring the epitome of a phony politician.
Re the deficit, did you not get the memo that no o e cares about it anymore? The public get too upset now at every cut and the government lacks the numbers to get through difficult choices, so they wo t even bother anymore.
0 -
I agree over Clinton. I think she will make a perfectly acceptable President and the world can sleep a little easier.stodge said:Morning all
I seem to be in a minority of one here but I quite like HRC. I don't have an issue with emails or anything like that and we've all said and done things we might regret or wish had been done differently. As a result, I've little concern with America under her stewardship. Trump, on the other hand, is madder than a box of frogs.
On matters Halifax, Mrs Stodge is unimpressed with the voice of Wilma Flintstone but I did point out the original speaker has probably been dead 30 years or more. Nice to see a distant echo of my distant childhood.
Yesterday's ICM poll got the Conservatives on here over-excited but Stodge's Tenth Law of Politics states "if you want big changes, have a big defeat, not a big victory". The personal and political humiliation of a heavy defeat (and I won't use portside analogies) will have an impact just as the magnitude of the 1997 defeat affected Conservative politics.
One other thought for the morning - I do sense the tax cutting brigade think they have an ally at No.11 and I wonder if we will see a move away from the nuanced policies of the Coalition years which concentrated on raising personal allowances and instead Hammond's first Budget will go straight for cuts in tax rates across the board.
We still have a mountain of debt and a large deficit but I suppose the fans of Laffer will scream that any tax cut will bring in more revenue and the wealthy are already paying so much (not surprising, they earn more so they pay more) they need a break. My local Government financial friend is very much of the view the 2017-18 round will be brutal and he's already planning for up to 15% reductions in Government funding.
Trump on the other hand.
I suspect in fact it is all hot air and he will change utterly when in office (but I'd rather not take the risk and find out frankly).0 -
Morning. Point of order, it wasn't the 1997 defeat that forced the party to change, it was 2001 and then 2005 cemented the old style of Tory politics in the past. We lost in 2005 to a mass murdering liar. That was the moment people realised that policies don't really matter, it's all about presentation. Which is why Dave came along and won while the policy side was empty for a long time.stodge said:Morning all
Yesterday's ICM poll got the Conservatives on here over-excited but Stodge's Tenth Law of Politics states "if you want big changes, have a big defeat, not a big victory". The personal and political humiliation of a heavy defeat (and I won't use portside analogies) will have an impact just as the magnitude of the 1997 defeat affected Conservative politics.0 -
The truth is most British people are feckless borrowers and in a low interest rate regime that's fine but many people (and I include myself in this) are basically running hard to stand still. For those with mortgages, however, the years of low inflation have been a golden opportunity to pay off debt - unfortunately, for others, low interest rates has probably led to over-commitment and were rates to rise again, there would be real problems.John_M said:
It's one of those vicious circles. Japanese consumers won't spend their money (their savings rate is 3x the UK's). Therefore domestic demand remains low (not helped by their demographics), therefore companies don't want to invest, and see no need to raise wages. With historically low interest rates and no wage increases, Japanese folk feel they have to save heroic amounts of money for their retirement. So it goes.
We have a huge advantage over the Japanese; Brits are feckless consumers under almost all circumstances. It's a mad world; thrift is bad, extravagance is good.
QE (our very own financial methadone) keeps the lid on everything for now - the British economy which always had a lot of inflation in it, is now functioning on zero interest rates, zero inflation and virtually zero growth.
0 -
Mrs Clinton is unfit.rottenborough said:
I agree over Clinton. I think she will make a perfectly acceptable President and the world can sleep a little easier.stodge said:Morning all
I seem to be in a minority of one here but I quite like HRC. I don't have an issue with emails or anything like that and we've all said and done things we might regret or wish had been done differently. As a result, I've little concern with America under her stewardship. Trump, on the other hand, is madder than a box of frogs.
On matters Halifax, Mrs Stodge is unimpressed with the voice of Wilma Flintstone but I did point out the original speaker has probably been dead 30 years or more. Nice to see a distant echo of my distant childhood.
Yesterday's ICM poll got the Conservatives on here over-excited but Stodge's Tenth Law of Politics states "if you want big changes, have a big defeat, not a big victory". The personal and political humiliation of a heavy defeat (and I won't use portside analogies) will have an impact just as the magnitude of the 1997 defeat affected Conservative politics.
One other thought for the morning - I do sense the tax cutting brigade think they have an ally at No.11 and I wonder if we will see a move away from the nuanced policies of the Coalition years which concentrated on raising personal allowances and instead Hammond's first Budget will go straight for cuts in tax rates across the board.
We still have a mountain of debt and a large deficit but I suppose the fans of Laffer will scream that any tax cut will bring in more revenue and the wealthy are already paying so much (not surprising, they earn more so they pay more) they need a break. My local Government financial friend is very much of the view the 2017-18 round will be brutal and he's already planning for up to 15% reductions in Government funding.
Trump on the other hand.
I suspect in fact it is all hot air and he will change utterly when in office (but I'd rather not take the risk and find out frankly).
#neverFrump.0
