politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At some stage some of the “will Trump survive” bets will be va

SystemSystem Posts: 12,550
edited January 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At some stage some of the “will Trump survive” bets will be value

Donald Trump betting odds from @LadPolitics pic.twitter.com/MkiO5evY6G

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    Glorious first!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Psychotic Second. Bwahahahahahah
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Second! Like Remain...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    More likely the GOP lose Congress in 2018 but Trump is re-elected in 2020 in my view
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    edited January 2017
    Pence is there ready and waiting for the moment Trumpski goes. We need to watch what he says and does.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,709
    Trump to serve two full terms is decent enough at 4-1. Fred doesn't want my business though.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Surely the no Brexit and Trump to be out of office by 1 Jan 2019 at 12/1 is the value bet. Still in the EU is pretty nailed on as A50 will not have expired. Or am I missing something?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    CarlottaVance said:

    Second! Like Remain...

    Remain did worse than I remembered :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,532
    4/6 on full first term looks an absolute steal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    edited January 2017
    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    He cameoed in one of the Home Alone films too.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,015
    SeanT said:

    I guess I'm like a humble Red Army soldier who fought his way from Moscow to Berlin, killing a few nazis on the way, and raping the odd fraulein (rhetorically). I've done my bit. The war is over. I am exhausted.

    How Germany is divided is less interesting to me even as it intrigues others. I want to go home to my wife and kids on the banks of the Volga, where the silver birches sway.

    I hesitated to use this analogy earlier, because Godwin, but as you've done it...

    Your attitude would have been like Churchill saying in 1939 that he was bored of talking about the Nazis. He'd been putting his case for years and finally he had won the argument! Except that was just the beginning...
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Looks like an interesting weekend - a state of emergency comes into effect at 4pm tomorrow and we're expecting 4-8 inches of snow locally tomorrow overnight. We've been warned to expect to be stuck at home for 3 days.

    Would this be happening if Hillary had won?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,015
    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    This is but one reason why the many people who will attempt to emulate him over the next few years will fall flat on their faces.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    His turn in Home Alone 2 caused my kids much be/amusement this Xmas.

    Branson for PM.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    I guess I'm like a humble Red Army soldier who fought his way from Moscow to Berlin, killing a few nazis on the way, and raping the odd fraulein (rhetorically). I've done my bit. The war is over. I am exhausted.

    How Germany is divided is less interesting to me even as it intrigues others. I want to go home to my wife and kids on the banks of the Volga, where the silver birches sway.

    Brexit is not something with a fairytale wedding. It is a bitter recriminating divorce, with all the good grace that goes with that.

    I think soft Brexit is a non starter that will satisfuy neither faction, and will split the Tories down the middle again. In the unlikely event of the EU27 agreeing it, it will collapse in its own contradictions promptly.

    Hard Brexit is the only answer. It is also the default outcome to A50, so nailed on.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,238
    Tim_B said:

    Looks like an interesting weekend - a state of emergency comes into effect at 4pm tomorrow and we're expecting 4-8 inches of snow locally tomorrow overnight. We've been warned to expect to be stuck at home for 3 days.

    Would this be happening if Hillary had won?

    More importantly NFL playoffs...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,709
    rcs1000 said:

    4/6 on full first term looks an absolute steal.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Surely the no Brexit and Trump to be out of office by 1 Jan 2019 at 12/1 is the value bet. Still in the EU is pretty nailed on as A50 will not have expired. Or am I missing something?

    Pulpstar said:

    Trump to serve two full terms is decent enough at 4-1. Fred doesn't want my business though.

    These are the specials to take if you can.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Surely the no Brexit and Trump to be out of office by 1 Jan 2019 at 12/1 is the value bet. Still in the EU is pretty nailed on as A50 will not have expired. Or am I missing something?

    Still needs Trump to be out of office within two years and I wouldn't be tempted by even that alone at 12/1. That's without considering the risk of a swift divorce being agreed (two years is a limit if there's no early date agreed).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    foxinsoxuk said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    I guess I'm like a humble Red Army soldier who fought his way from Moscow to Berlin, killing a few nazis on the way, and raping the odd fraulein (rhetorically). I've done my bit. The war is over. I am exhausted.

    How Germany is divided is less interesting to me even as it intrigues others. I want to go home to my wife and kids on the banks of the Volga, where the silver birches sway.

    Brexit is not something with a fairytale wedding. It is a bitter recriminating divorce, with all the good grace that goes with that.

    I think soft Brexit is a non starter that will satisfuy neither faction, and will split the Tories down the middle again. In the unlikely event of the EU27 agreeing it, it will collapse in its own contradictions promptly.

    Hard Brexit is the only answer. It is also the default outcome to A50, so nailed on.
    Hardish Brexit more likely, there are still likely to be some EU budget contributions and a points system is not on the cards
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    He cameoed in one of the Home Alone films too.
    Home Alone 2 - Lost in New York I believe
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,709
    edited January 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Surely the no Brexit and Trump to be out of office by 1 Jan 2019 at 12/1 is the value bet. Still in the EU is pretty nailed on as A50 will not have expired. Or am I missing something?

    Still needs Trump to be out of office within two years and I wouldn't be tempted by even that alone at 12/1. That's without considering the risk of a swift divorce being agreed (two years is a limit if there's no early date agreed).
    We'll still be in the EU at that point, when has anything in the EU ever ran ahead of schedule :D ?
    I think 12-1 for Trump to have gone is OK - I wouldn't take 1-12 on this, though my only bet here is @rcs1000 suggestion of Trump to stay at 4-6 which looks a good price.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Remembering SeanT's Pro EU phase and Lib Dem confessional on PB.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    williamglenn said:

    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    This is but one reason why the many people who will attempt to emulate him over the next few years will fall flat on their faces.
    Indeed though I think Sugar could have a run for Mayor
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,238
    edited January 2017
    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    Jonathan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    His turn in Home Alone 2 caused my kids much be/amusement this Xmas.

    Branson for PM.
    Branson had a cameo in Casino Royale I believe
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Diehard with a Vengeance (1995) on BBC1 and a woman expresses disbelief by saying 'and I'm going to marry Donald Trump' shows the extent of his fame even then

    He cameoed in one of the Home Alone films too.
    Home Alone 2 - Lost in New York I believe
    That'd make sense!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,015
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    Cutting.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Philip_Thompson said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Surely the no Brexit and Trump to be out of office by 1 Jan 2019 at 12/1 is the value bet. Still in the EU is pretty nailed on as A50 will not have expired. Or am I missing something?

    Still needs Trump to be out of office within two years and I wouldn't be tempted by even that alone at 12/1. That's without considering the risk of a swift divorce being agreed (two years is a limit if there's no early date agreed).
    The wording is for Trump to not complete his term, so should mean going in less than 4 years (1/1/2019 only seems to apply to Brexit). The grim reaper may well oblige for that, if no one else does...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    williamglenn said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    Cutting.
    He has sexed up his headline.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    What odds can I get on Trump getting whacked by the CIA? (joke!)

    I hope anyone considering betting on his getting "successfully impeached" is aware that no US president has ever been removed from office as a result of being convicted at an impeachment trial.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,238
    edited January 2017
    foxinsoxuk said:

    williamglenn said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    Cutting.
    He has sexed up his headline.
    I don't know, but I bet he can deploy them in under 45 minutes...
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited January 2017
    Dromedary said:

    What odds can I get on Trump getting whacked by the CIA? (joke!)

    I hope anyone considering betting on his getting "successfully impeached" is aware that no US president has ever been removed from office as a result of being convicted at an impeachment trial.

    I would have thought it far more likely that Trump departs the White House in a hearse or ambulance than a prison van.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,123
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    How much better off would we be if he had never given up drinking?
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    @rcs1000 and others:

    I propose the following picture of the hurdle for Le Pen winning the presidency, based on the voting in R2 of the 2015 regionals:

    * 100% of those who voted FN, plus
    * 1 in 6 of those who voted non-FN (who were 72% of the 58% turnout), plus
    * 57% of those who abstained but who will vote in the presidential.

    If we increase the 57% to 75%, the 1 in 6 changes to 1 in 10.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2017
    Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.

    Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?

    Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?

    The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.

    -US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.

    -A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.

    Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited January 2017
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,593
    HYUFD said:



    Hardish Brexit more likely, there are still likely to be some EU budget contributions and a points system is not on the cards

    I think it has now been definitively established by the bien pensants of the Guardian and BBC that points systems are racist so that's never going to happen in the UK.

  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:



    Hardish Brexit more likely, there are still likely to be some EU budget contributions and a points system is not on the cards

    I think it has now been definitively established by the bien pensants of the Guardian and BBC that points systems are racist so that's never going to happen in the UK.
    Britain already uses a points system to regulate immigration from outside the EEA and the Commonwealth. Has anyone at the BBC or Guardian said they shouldn't? Some info about Tier 2 is here.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited January 2017
    News stories that wont be leading threads today ;)

    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/817139894921424896

    https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/817140971121020929

    Not forgetting...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/project-fear-brexit-predictions-flawed-partisan-new-study-says/

    Predictions by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit vote have been brought into question by a study which says that leaving the European Union will halve net migration, give British workers a pay rise and help to solve the housing crisis.

    Despite BrExit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    edited January 2017
    AlsoIndigo said:

    News stories that wont be leading threads today ;)

    twitter.com/thetimes/status/817139894921424896

    twitter.com/Telegraph/status/817140971121020929

    Not forgetting...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/project-fear-brexit-predictions-flawed-partisan-new-study-says/

    Predictions by the Treasury ahead of the Brexit vote have been brought into question by a study which says that leaving the European Union will halve net migration, give British workers a pay rise and help to solve the housing crisis.

    Despite BrExit.

    As you say, surely that "after is a typo.. should have been "despite". :p
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    .

    This attitude is common amongst brexitters. From farage quitting politics, dan hannan announcing his work is done and thinking of retraining as a teacher, right through to the man in the street saying "theyll fgure it out" . And now the last words of SeanT on the subject.

    These geeks and experts you are referring to who are going to make brexit happen dont exist. The foreign office is in crisis. The civil service do not have the capability to deliver brexit the way you are hoping and there is no credible alternative.

    The reason is not because they are fifth column remainers but because the civil service dont have the institutional capacity to protect britains interests in this renegotiation. Its a massive problem and noone in government is facing up to it. It wont sort itself out if you just ignore it and hope forthe best.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    A very fast constitutional amendment?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    edited January 2017
    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    And yet the University of Cambridge disagrees with you in today's papers, hmmm who to believe.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/project-fear-brexit-predictions-flawed-partisan-new-study-says/
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    A "state of emergency". :smiley:
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Daniel Radcliffe is appearing at the Old Vic from 25th February.

    http://www.oldvictheatre.com/whats-on/2017/rosencrantz-and-guildenstern/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,034
    Morning all. Bredfred obviously trying to attract the mugs with that line of odds, what is it they say about bookies who only offer one side of a bet?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited January 2017
    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    There is none. Of course, there could be coup d'etat whose perpetrators could proclaim him to be "President of the United States" as of 1st February, but it would not be the office described in the Constitution.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,034
    RobD said:

    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    A very fast constitutional amendment?
    I think that's about the only option at this stage. The risk of being "Unsure of next president", due to election-related court cases etc has thankfully passed. Possibly a massive terrorist attack on inauguration day that takes out Trump, Pence and Ryan and causes mourning and uncertainty for ten days?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    A very fast constitutional amendment?
    I think that's about the only option at this stage. The risk of being "Unsure of next president", due to election-related court cases etc has thankfully passed. Possibly a massive terrorist attack on inauguration day that takes out Trump, Pence and Ryan and causes mourning and uncertainty for ten days?
    Surely someone in the line of succession would be kept away?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,732
    edited January 2017
    Y0kel said:

    Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.

    Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?

    Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?

    The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.

    -US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.

    -A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.

    Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.

    Aside from the whole Dem vs GOP angle it would be interesting to have a market on who will win in 2020, the FBI or the CIA.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,577
    rpjs said:

    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    There is none. Of course, there could be coup d'etat whose perpetrators could proclaim him to be "President of the United States" as of 1st February, but it would not be the office described in the Constitution.
    Not unless you change the constitution ;)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,034
    edited January 2017
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    JohnLoony said:

    What, if any, is the mechanism by which Obama could still be POTUS on 1st February?

    A very fast constitutional amendment?
    I think that's about the only option at this stage. The risk of being "Unsure of next president", due to election-related court cases etc has thankfully passed. Possibly a massive terrorist attack on inauguration day that takes out Trump, Pence and Ryan and causes mourning and uncertainty for ten days?
    Surely someone in the line of succession would be kept away?
    Yes, they usually have a "Designated Survivor" for these things, but it's not something written in the constitution and it's not thankfully ever had to be put into practice. After the VP and House Speaker it gets rather complicated. At his point it's about the only thing that possibly sees Obama still in place on 1st Feb though. 10,000/1 chance?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Y0kel said:



    -A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.

    Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.

    Please sir, is it us sir? Probably the Israelies...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,706
    Hard to see any Trump exit scenario in the first 4 years, though anything is possible next time round - can see him running as an independent,for instance.

    FPT: Don wrote a rather similar piece promoting the challenge to Corbyn last year, and later mentioned that he was involved in the campaign himself (for Labour First, an anti-Corbyn group). Labour First is also active in supporting Coyne. Just for transparency, could he let us know if he's still involved?

    Personally, I doubt if Coyne has much chance - he's trying to weaponise anti-Corbyn feeling, but taking a view on Corbyn isn't really going to be uppermost in most UNITE voters' minds.But although I'm a member I don't have any particular insight.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307
    NickPalmer said:

    Hard to see any Trump exit scenario in the first 4 years, though anything is possible next time round - can see him running as an independent,for instance.

    FPT: Don wrote a rather similar piece promoting the challenge to Corbyn last year, and later mentioned that he was involved in the campaign himself (for Labour First, an anti-Corbyn group). Labour First is also active in supporting Coyne. Just for transparency, could he let us know if he's still involved?

    Personally, I doubt if Coyne has much chance - he's trying to weaponise anti-Corbyn feeling, but taking a view on Corbyn isn't really going to be uppermost in most UNITE voters' minds.But although I'm a member I don't have any particular insight.

    The failure of this challenge to mcclusky feels somewhat inevitable
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,034
    AlsoIndigo said:

    News stories that wont be leading threads today ;)
    https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/817139894921424896
    .

    Sad to hear of the untimely death of the lady pictured on the front page of the Times. She's Jill Saward, who was the first rape victim to waive her anonymity and campaigned for nearly 30 years for better treatment of victims by the criminal justice system.

    Observant F1 fans might also know she is the sister of Joe Saward, a well known motorsport journalist.

    Rest in peace.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited January 2017
    NickPalmer said:

    Hard to see any Trump exit scenario in the first 4 years, though anything is possible next time round - can see him running as an independent,for instance.

    .

    The GOP may well kick him out (of the party) if they do poorly in the mid-terms.

  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    logical_song said:

    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
    Whose truth ?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    "Grow up Donald, grow up, time to be an adult, you're president. Time to do something. Show us what you have."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38526570
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    AlsoIndigo said:

    logical_song said:

    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
    Whose truth ?
    Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
    You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    logical_song said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    logical_song said:

    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
    Whose truth ?
    Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
    You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
    But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,121
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Hard to see any Trump exit scenario in the first 4 years, though anything is possible next time round - can see him running as an independent,for instance.

    .

    The GOP may well kick him out (of the party) if they do poorly in the mid-terms.

    Is one actually a party member in the US, in the sense that we pay party membership fees. I get the impression that it’s a matter of declaration and paying up as much as one wants to, so one can’t be ‘kicked out’ as one can be here.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    logical_song said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    logical_song said:

    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
    Whose truth ?
    Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
    You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
    But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
    Agreed, but asking 'Whose truth?' as AlsoIndigo did leads one to think that maybe anybody's 'truth' is as valuable as anybody else's. I don't accept that.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    (((Dan Hodges))) ‏@DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago
    We all mocked @michaelgove for his "experts" comment. Then along came Andy Haldane...

    Stocks of humble pie under threat..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,701
    Whilst the number 1 single option is tempting I think I will leave these alone.

    Trump has got off to a more remarkable start than any President I can recall (although, strangely, he has not been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yet). His Presidency will be a roller coaster in the same way as his campaign was with plenty of outrageous things being said and the odd outrageous thing being done but, I think, the results largely surprising on the upside.

    Subject to DEATH paying a visit he will survive at least his first term. And DEATH must surely be wanting to put his feet up with a nice cup of tea after the overtime worked in 2016.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,661
    edited January 2017
    edmundintokyo said:

    Y0kel said:

    Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.

    Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?

    Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?

    The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.

    -US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.

    -A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.

    Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.

    Aside from the whole Dem vs GOP angle it would be interesting to have a market on who will win in 2020, the FBI or the CIA.
    This is all starting to sound a bit Manchurian Candidate.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TGOHF said:

    (((Dan Hodges))) ‏@DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago
    We all mocked @michaelgove for his "experts" comment. Then along came Andy Haldane...

    Stocks of humble pie under threat..

    The Bank of England's chief economist has admitted dire warnings of a downturn in the wake of the Brexit vote were wrong, according to The Daily Telegraph.

    & Britain has world’s top economy after Brexit according to the Times.

    Humble pie indeed.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Exactly one fifth of the US presidents have failed to complete a term in office to date, making it a 20% rather than the 40% shot implied by Ladbrokes' odds of 4/6 on Donald Trump completing his term. Even allowing for an above average chance on this occasion, I struggle to make it more than a 25% chance that he will leave office early. The main question is whether you have better things to do with the money over the next four years.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words

    "The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."

    Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."

    It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,701
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Exactly one fifth of the US presidents have failed to complete a term in office to date, making it a 20% rather than the 40% shot implied by Ladbrokes' odds of 4/6 on Donald Trump completing his term. Even allowing for an above average chance on this occasion, I struggle to make it more than a 25% chance that he will leave office early. The main question is whether you have better things to do with the money over the next four years.

    And a chunk of that fifth were not in their first terms (FDR 4th, Nixon 2nd, Lincoln 2nd, are the ones that immediately come to mind).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,701
    Good morning, everyone.

    MikeK has gotten in touch with me to enquire as to the reasoning/situation regarding his ban around Christmas Time. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,706
    SimonStClare said:

    TGOHF said:

    (((Dan Hodges))) ‏@DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago
    We all mocked @michaelgove for his "experts" comment. Then along came Andy Haldane...

    Stocks of humble pie under threat..

    The Bank of England's chief economist has admitted dire warnings of a downturn in the wake of the Brexit vote were wrong, according to The Daily Telegraph.

    & Britain has world’s top economy after Brexit according to the Times.

    Humble pie indeed.
    Yes, but be careful. Haldane's detailed comments say they think that the downturn has merely been delayed, and the "top economy" headline relates to one quarter's figures. There's no dounbt at all that the economy did well this quarter, and the :Project Fear stuff was clearly exaggerated, like most campaign material. But the outlook remains both unclear and rather unpromising.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ishmael_Z said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words

    "The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."

    Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."

    It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
    To an extent you are correct, but there is a massive but!

    The highly effective Prussian and later German military worked so well because commanders at all levels were all briefed on the overall objectives and encouraged to act without orders, and indeed against orders, if the situation changed. This is an incredibly flexible and reactive in a battle situation, but does require a high degree of coherence in the commanders and for them all to buy into the same objectives.

    I do not believe that this is the case with the Brexiteers. They are acting like the Russians at Tannenberg 1914 rather than the Germans.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    logical_song said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    logical_song said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    logical_song said:

    Dromedary said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/817114298795327489
    Not sure bad al banging on about bullied government experts is a good idea!

    "Telling truth to power", even in its original form of "speaking truth to power", is a phrase that makes me switch RIGHT OFF.

    It's only used nowadays by lazy b*stards, by human peacocks whose image of their own practice is very poorly aligned with its real character, and by the highly confused.

    That's even when it doesn't come from a former tabloid editor turned government propagandist like Campbell, and even given that it was a Quaker radical who first used the phrase and generally speaking I have a lot of respect for Quaker radicals.

    Speak truth to power and they'll probably ignore you, shoot you, or recruit you. That's if you're not already working for them and telling them the kind of truth they like. Then they'll give you a bonus or at least keep on paying you. Save me from the dopy whinging of the "expert", the "intellectual" and the hack writer!
    You can always ignore the truth, but it must help to be told it.
    Whose truth ?
    Absolute Truth - A Logical Necessity
    You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth.
    But one can very reasonably argue that no human can know absolute truth. It is like Plato's (the original not the cat loving version on here) Theory of Forms. In this instance it is fairly obvious to all that the so called 'truths' are nothing of the sort.
    Agreed, but asking 'Whose truth?' as AlsoIndigo did leads one to think that maybe anybody's 'truth' is as valuable as anybody else's. I don't accept that.
    Obviously this is getting into the realms of philosophy to some extent. Never a good place to be on a frosty Friday morning in January. But one might suggest that the fact there is no means of assessing 'absolute' truths renders them effectively useless when dealing with such complex concepts and poorly understood subjects as this. On simple matters and those that can be supported experimentally then I would certainly agree with you. But to try and apply the concept of 'truth' to an area which is primarily one of opinion seems rather counter productive - as we are seeing here.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Exactly one fifth of the US presidents have failed to complete a term in office to date, making it a 20% rather than the 40% shot implied by Ladbrokes' odds of 4/6 on Donald Trump completing his term. Even allowing for an above average chance on this occasion, I struggle to make it more than a 25% chance that he will leave office early. The main question is whether you have better things to do with the money over the next four years.

    Fallacy of the day. No different from saying that 20% of terrestrial biomass consists of ants, therefore it is a 20% shot that Donald Trump is an ant. You can and should look for and incorporate all relevant data before assessing your probability (in the words of Bayes' theorem you should update your priors).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,706
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    Think of it as a war, and consider Von Moltke's splendid words

    "The tactical result of an engagement forms the base for new strategic decisions because victory or defeat in a battle changes the situation to such a degree that no human acumen is able to see beyond the first battle. In this sense one should understand Napoleon's saying: "I have never had a plan of operations."

    Therefore no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force."

    It's such a fluid situation that it isn't plannable beyond the opening gambit. We'll be fine though.
    To an extent you are correct, but there is a massive but!

    The highly effective Prussian and later German military worked so well because commanders at all levels were all briefed on the overall objectives and encouraged to act without orders, and indeed against orders, if the situation changed. This is an incredibly flexible and reactive in a battle situation, but does require a high degree of coherence in the commanders and for them all to buy into the same objectives.

    I do not believe that this is the case with the Brexiteers. They are acting like the Russians at Tannenberg 1914 rather than the Germans.
    Bungay has written a most interesting book on management based upon the ideas of the Prussian military fwiw.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01HPVHLHG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,386
    Dr Fox,

    "The highly effective Prussian and later German military worked so well because commanders at all levels were all briefed on the overall objectives and encouraged to act without orders, and indeed against orders."

    I like your simile, however ... they all were fighting on the same side. With some prominent Remainers, they actively seek to disrupt the plans. They may be a small minority but they are well placed.

    "but does require a high degree of coherence in the commanders and for them all to buy into the same objectives."

    Exactly. The demand for details of the exact plan (whether there is one or not) makes sense if you can trust people with the information and whether making it public is an advantage. I doubt if the German plans in 1940 would have worked so well if it had been trumpeted in advance.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,701
    Dr. Foxinsox, sounds interesting. Most of the military-to-management books appear to be Chinese (typically Sun Tzu, but also Sun Bin, Zhuge Liang, Liu Ji and Sima Yi).

    However, I agree with Mr. CD13. If we label anything from the EU as 'essential', they'll simply whack an enormous price tag on it.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    Thanks. Colour me underwhelmed.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    Thanks. Colour me underwhelmed.
    If we'd had the lowest GDP for one quarter I suspect it would not be flicked away so readily.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    NickPalmer said:

    SimonStClare said:

    TGOHF said:

    (((Dan Hodges))) ‏@DPJHodges 7m7 minutes ago
    We all mocked @michaelgove for his "experts" comment. Then along came Andy Haldane...

    Stocks of humble pie under threat..

    The Bank of England's chief economist has admitted dire warnings of a downturn in the wake of the Brexit vote were wrong, according to The Daily Telegraph.

    & Britain has world’s top economy after Brexit according to the Times.

    Humble pie indeed.
    Yes, but be careful. Haldane's detailed comments say they think that the downturn has merely been delayed, and the "top economy" headline relates to one quarter's figures. There's no dounbt at all that the economy did well this quarter, and the :Project Fear stuff was clearly exaggerated, like most campaign material. But the outlook remains both unclear and rather unpromising.
    Oh without a doubt Mr Palmer, the country is not out of the woods yet, however it is still a pleasant surprise to see positive front page headlines contrary to the predicted Armageddon.

    [edit] glad to see the "quote" button is back, yeh...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,252
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth in the G7.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,532
    Without comment

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    SeanT said:

    fpt for topping

    The reason I don't want to talk about Brexit any more, and find it a yawn, is not because I have lost faith in it, but because I have - as I have now proved - been campaigning for it and journalising for it for 20 solid years. Ever since PB began (and before) as old timers here will know.

    Therefore to me many of the arguments are unbelievably stupid or dull or repetitive. I've rehashed them in my mind and in articles trillions of times.

    Of course to others they are new and fresh. You've never had to think about this stuff before. But I have done the thinking many times.

    I just want Brexit. I don't really care if it is soft hard clean clumsy silly or stupendous. Just Brexit. Let the geeks work out the details. I appreciate others will find the minutiae fascinating.

    It is boring and we're all repeating ourselves. The reason I essentially KNOW Brexit will be a huge mess is that there is no plan for Brexit, there never has been and never will be. Leavers have never articulated a coherent direction for Brexit, let alone a realistic worked out plan. Some preposterously blame David Cameron for not doing their thinking for them. Finally because no-one, Leaver as well as Remainer, is willing to take ownership of the project.


    The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU. How far that us achievable is another matter and will be the focus of the negotiations
    We are Germany's 3rd biggest market - they don't want to not have a trade deal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,701
    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    I think it might be highest GDP in 2016 in the G7. Which in some ways is pretty concerning. Whilst nearer my forecast than the official one 2016 was hardly a rip roaring year for the UK.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,252
    rcs1000 said:

    Without comment

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

    With companies shifting investment from Mexico to the USA, isn't Mexico already paying for the wall?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TGOHF said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    Thanks. Colour me underwhelmed.
    If we'd had the lowest GDP for one quarter I suspect it would not be flicked away so readily.

    It was not flicked away -- it is the front page lead of the Times. I've not looked but would not be surprised if every G7 country has had the highest growth for at least one quarter in the past decade.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    rcs1000 said:

    Without comment

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/border-wall-house-republicans-donald-trump-taxpayers/index.html

    American jobs for American brickies?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,252
    edited January 2017
    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    No, for 2016 as a whole. There is also a lot of scepticism about the supposed downturn this year. The Bank and OBR are going to have egg on their faces in a few months when the forecasts are revised up to 2% hich is barely any different to this year or the UK's trend growth rate.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,252
    DavidL said:

    NickPalmer said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Britain has the world's top economy after Brexit -- can a Times reader or subscriber briefly outline in what sense or by what measure that might be true (and why it seems to be in the present tense)?

    Highest GDP growth for one quarter?
    I think it might be highest GDP in 2016 in the G7. Which in some ways is pretty concerning. Whilst nearer my forecast than the official one 2016 was hardly a rip roaring year for the UK.
    Yes and that's the problem, 2.2% growth is just average, we should be in the middle of the pack. Yet we aren't, and that points at stagnation in the wes a worse problem than anything to do with Brexit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,422
    Trump threatens Toyota with tariffs
    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/817071792711942145
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,454
    Y0kel said:

    Trump, as I have said plenty before, is in the Kremlin's pocket.

    Is it just money, how a guy who's businesses were $900million down suddenly had money to burn?

    Is it that they have compromising information about his leisure activities whilst he was Russia many years ago?

    The US has a President who is more interested in keeping his interests with a foreign and hostile state above his own country.

    -US intelligence has intercepts of senior Kremlin types expressing their particular views of Trump and his particular position with them. This is not just the Russians congratulating themselves as reported in the Washington Post.

    -A 3rd party, ostensibly friendly, intelligence agency was so keen to get what they believed was the compromising Russian material on Trump that they went straight for bribery by letting it be known via whatever channels they had in Russia that they'd be willing to pay a large amount of cash. This was before the election.

    Trump is in way over his head, the question is whether the spooks can muster themselves to bring him down. This is a tricky stance to take.

    Cuckoo Cuckoo, come in Tapestry your time under cover is up.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:

    The plan for Brexit is clear, gain control of UK borders and get some sort of trade deal with the EU.

    That's not a plan, that's an aspiration.

    To continue the battle analogy that has been running this morning, all of the commanders need the same objective.

    The Brexiteers can't agree if we are invading France, Russia or Great Britain. We will likely try all 3, and we know how that story ends...
This discussion has been closed.