Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON MPs using the Trump visit to oust Bercow have lost the

13»

Comments

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,597
    edited February 2017

    The media like to make claim that things are more interesting than they actually prove to be. Many a by - election is said to be close and in reality is not at all.

    This is spot on.

    The BBC almost always say that election results are uncertain.

    Even when Blair was winning landslides - their final analysis the night before GEs was always - "nobody's sure / people are on edge / polls might be wrong / marginals might be behaving differently etc etc".

    Two reasons:

    1) They don't want to get it wrong.
    2) They don't want to be accused of bias.

    So they always stick to the above script unless it's an absolute slam dunk. Even then they'll say something like "most people expect / the consensus is".

  • Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: President Trump says he is considering a "brand new order" to ensure travel ban stays in place which could be issued on Monday or Tuesday

    Is there anything stopping him continuing to draft slightly different versions?
    No, he can do that, and the Appeal Court verdict nudged him that way, essentially saying that it wasn't up to them but up to the executive to do any redrafting.

    Trump's difficulty is that the court said it thought his campaign rhetoric should be taken into account in any discussion on the merits (which would apply to future orders too), and the rhetoric was explicitly about anti-Muslim action, which is unconsititutional. So he needs to have an order which doesn't appear to be implementation of his campaign rhetoric but something different, yet similar enough to make his base feel he's delivering - e.g. including a non-Muslim country in his ban, such as Venezuala, vaguely citing general unrest there.
    Team trump already has a legal root to achieve their aims by copying Obamas super go slow on visas. Bannon is up to something, but question is what? To rewrite us immigration rules in a way that make it very difficult to change in the future?
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    dr_spyn said:

    Restore The Victoria Ground...desperate stuff from Snell.

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/829276837067026432

    ' The Victoria Ground was the home ground of Stoke City F.C. from 1878 until 1997, when the club relocated to the Britannia Stadium '

    Now which party was in government from 1997 ?

    And which party controlled Stoke council from 1997 ?

    And which party did the Stoke MPs represent ?
    Anybody who knows anything about stoke knows what a shit show the local authority are and have been for donkeys years.
    Sounds very reminiscent of the Scottish hole threat to Labour, and look what happened there. Having lived under councils of various hues, the red ones always seemed pretty venal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: President Trump says he is considering a "brand new order" to ensure travel ban stays in place which could be issued on Monday or Tuesday

    Is there anything stopping him continuing to draft slightly different versions?
    No, he can do that, and the Appeal Court verdict nudged him that way, essentially saying that it wasn't up to them but up to the executive to do any redrafting.

    Trump's difficulty is that the court said it thought his campaign rhetoric should be taken into account in any discussion on the merits (which would apply to future orders too), and the rhetoric was explicitly about anti-Muslim action, which is unconsititutional. So he needs to have an order which doesn't appear to be implementation of his campaign rhetoric but something different, yet similar enough to make his base feel he's delivering - e.g. including a non-Muslim country in his ban, such as Venezuala, vaguely citing general unrest there.
    The scope of the constitution is with regards to citizens of the USA, not the whole world. I don't believe such a ban would actually be unconstitutional - as I understand the first amendment in particular.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: President Trump says he is considering a "brand new order" to ensure travel ban stays in place which could be issued on Monday or Tuesday

    Is there anything stopping him continuing to draft slightly different versions?
    No, he can do that, and the Appeal Court verdict nudged him that way, essentially saying that it wasn't up to them but up to the executive to do any redrafting.

    Trump's difficulty is that the court said it thought his campaign rhetoric should be taken into account in any discussion on the merits (which would apply to future orders too), and the rhetoric was explicitly about anti-Muslim action, which is unconsititutional. So he needs to have an order which doesn't appear to be implementation of his campaign rhetoric but something different, yet similar enough to make his base feel he's delivering - e.g. including a non-Muslim country in his ban, such as Venezuala, vaguely citing general unrest there.
    What about Germany?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited February 2017

    dr_spyn said:

    Restore The Victoria Ground...desperate stuff from Snell.

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/829276837067026432

    ' The Victoria Ground was the home ground of Stoke City F.C. from 1878 until 1997, when the club relocated to the Britannia Stadium '

    Now which party was in government from 1997 ?

    And which party controlled Stoke council from 1997 ?

    And which party did the Stoke MPs represent ?
    Yep.

    That's labour's problem right across the industrial north.

    IIRC, the site has a flooding issue anyway, which makes it expensive to develop.

    The council was flogging off semi-derelict houses for £1 a couple of miles from that site - developers are going to struggle to turn a profit from a newbuild development, whatever the politicians promise.

    If there's one thing stoke doesn't suffer from, it's a lack of housing.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited February 2017

    dr_spyn said:

    Restore The Victoria Ground...desperate stuff from Snell.

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/829276837067026432

    ' The Victoria Ground was the home ground of Stoke City F.C. from 1878 until 1997, when the club relocated to the Britannia Stadium '

    Now which party was in government from 1997 ?

    And which party controlled Stoke council from 1997 ?

    And which party did the Stoke MPs represent ?
    Anybody who knows anything about stoke knows what a shit show the local authority are and have been for donkeys years.
    Sounds very reminiscent of the Scottish hole threat to Labour, and look what happened there. Having lived under councils of various hues, the red ones always seemed pretty venal.
    for quite a few years in recent times (including the last couple) Stoke Council has been run by a coalition of independents and Conservatives.
  • Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: President Trump says he is considering a "brand new order" to ensure travel ban stays in place which could be issued on Monday or Tuesday

    Is there anything stopping him continuing to draft slightly different versions?
    No, he can do that, and the Appeal Court verdict nudged him that way, essentially saying that it wasn't up to them but up to the executive to do any redrafting.

    Trump's difficulty is that the court said it thought his campaign rhetoric should be taken into account in any discussion on the merits (which would apply to future orders too), and the rhetoric was explicitly about anti-Muslim action, which is unconsititutional. So he needs to have an order which doesn't appear to be implementation of his campaign rhetoric but something different, yet similar enough to make his base feel he's delivering - e.g. including a non-Muslim country in his ban, such as Venezuala, vaguely citing general unrest there.
    Surely that's just what he has done, just in reverse? i.e. it's not explicitly an anti-muslim ban because countries like Saudi aren't on it.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,320
    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,320

    dr_spyn said:

    Restore The Victoria Ground...desperate stuff from Snell.

    https://twitter.com/gareth_snell/status/829276837067026432

    ' The Victoria Ground was the home ground of Stoke City F.C. from 1878 until 1997, when the club relocated to the Britannia Stadium '

    Now which party was in government from 1997 ?

    And which party controlled Stoke council from 1997 ?

    And which party did the Stoke MPs represent ?
    Anybody who knows anything about stoke knows what a shit show the local authority are and have been for donkeys years.
    Sounds very reminiscent of the Scottish hole threat to Labour, and look what happened there. Having lived under councils of various hues, the red ones always seemed pretty venal.
    Not always true. There are better and worse councils both Red and Blue. The problem is if they never change hands (nor even come close).
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,119
    Today's thread header makes me wonder whatever happened to Marf?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited February 2017
    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    Not that unusual! Indeed there is some evidence that mortality for obese people can be lower than those of normal BMI.

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2017/january/being-overweight-protects-heart-surgery-patients-research-suggests
  • dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    edited February 2017

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Nonsense. It was always the case that some very complicated unwinding of obligations was going to have to be done as a result of our leaving the EU, with big-looking numbers involved. These are worst-case, think of a number and double it type figures (and as rcs pointed out last thread, to the extent that they are pension obligations they are probably gross figures with no discount applied to take account of the time before they fall due) and the killer point is this: they are not penalty clause type claims which would simply not arise if we stayed in, they are commensurate with what our obligations would have been had we stayed in, with the difference that they are finite while if we stayed they would be open ended. So if we can't afford the cost of getting out, we certainly can't afford the cost of staying in.

    £40 billion is just under three years gross contributions, or 4 years net contributions. So what the Eurofanatics are saying is that because we don't want to pay the equivalent of 3 or 4 years contributions we should instead carry on paying contributions for ever.

    Not their brightest argument.
    While I speak for no-one except myself, my point was solely about people using lazily undiscounted numbers. Say there's a 21 year old British Eurocrat in Brussels. He is entitled to a pension, and that will run from his 67th Birthday to (say) his 97th. 30 years of pension payments will dwarf his current salary costs. If you simply add up 30 years of these payments you get a big number.

    But if you deposited a very small amount (say £5,000) in the stock market today, given nominal earnings growth of 3.5% and a dividend yield of 2.5%, then you can comfortably pay his pension in 45 years time. The media quotes £90,000 of pension payments! But the real liability is 5% of that level.

    Now, sure, I've used an extreme example, but using undiscounted numbers for pension liabilities is deeply misleading.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,320

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    A subject of some dispute http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-is-overweight-for-his-height-2016-9
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Nonsense. It was always the case that some very complicated unwinding of obligations was going to have to be done as a result of our leaving the EU, with big-looking numbers involved. These are worst-case, think of a number and double it type figures (and as rcs pointed out last thread, to the extent that they are pension obligations they are probably gross figures with no discount applied to take account of the time before they fall due) and the killer point is this: they are not penalty clause type claims which would simply not arise if we stayed in, they are commensurate with what our obligations would have been had we stayed in, with the difference that they are finite while if we stayed they would be open ended. So if we can't afford the cost of getting out, we certainly can't afford the cost of staying in.

    £40 billion is just under three years gross contributions, or 4 years net contributions. So what the Eurofanatics are saying is that because we don't want to pay the equivalent of 3 or 4 years contributions we should instead carry on paying contributions for ever.

    Not their brightest argument.
    While I speak for no-one except myself, my point was solely about people using lazily undiscounted numbers. Say there's a 21 year old British Eurocrat in Brussels. He is entitled to a pension, and that will run from his 67th Birthday to (say) his 97th. 30 years of pension payments will dwarf his current salary costs. If you simply add up 30 years of these payments you get a big number.

    But if you deposited a very small amount (say £5,000) in the stock market today, given nominal earnings growth of 3.5% and a dividend yield of 2.5%, then you can comfortably pay his pension in 45 years time. The media quotes £90,000 of pension payments! But the real liability is 5% of that level.

    Now, sure, I've used an extreme example, but using undiscounted numbers for pension liabilities is deeply misleading.
    Tis a good excuse to deny the NHS the promised £350 million per week though!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,320

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    Not that unusual! Indeed there is some evidence that mortality for obese people can be lower than those of normal BMI.

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2017/january/being-overweight-protects-heart-surgery-patients-research-suggests
    I bow to your specialist knowledge. Not in rude health from my (amateur) view.
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
    According to google he's 6'4" tall.

    I never realised he's so big.

    That's probably because both Melania and Ivanka are six footers themselves.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    Not that unusual! Indeed there is some evidence that mortality for obese people can be lower than those of normal BMI.

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2017/january/being-overweight-protects-heart-surgery-patients-research-suggests
    I bow to your specialist knowledge. Not in rude health from my (amateur) view.
    I agree, but the obesity paradox is an interesting one. Interesting to statistic interested public health physicians anyway!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_paradox

    I am of the reverse causation hypothesis. Sudden weighloss is a feature of dying people.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Nonsense. It was always the case that some very complicated unwinding of obligations was going to have to be done as a result of our leaving the EU, with big-looking numbers involved. These are worst-case, think of a number and double it type figures (and as rcs pointed out last thread, to the extent that they are pension obligations they are probably gross figures with no discount applied to take account of the time before they fall due) and the killer point is this: they are not penalty clause type claims which would simply not arise if we stayed in, they are commensurate with what our obligations would have been had we stayed in, with the difference that they are finite while if we stayed they would be open ended. So if we can't afford the cost of getting out, we certainly can't afford the cost of staying in.

    £40 billion is just under three years gross contributions, or 4 years net contributions. So what the Eurofanatics are saying is that because we don't want to pay the equivalent of 3 or 4 years contributions we should instead carry on paying contributions for ever.

    Not their brightest argument.
    While I speak for no-one except myself, my point was solely about people using lazily undiscounted numbers. Say there's a 21 year old British Eurocrat in Brussels. He is entitled to a pension, and that will run from his 67th Birthday to (say) his 97th. 30 years of pension payments will dwarf his current salary costs. If you simply add up 30 years of these payments you get a big number.

    But if you deposited a very small amount (say £5,000) in the stock market today, given nominal earnings growth of 3.5% and a dividend yield of 2.5%, then you can comfortably pay his pension in 45 years time. The media quotes £90,000 of pension payments! But the real liability is 5% of that level.

    Now, sure, I've used an extreme example, but using undiscounted numbers for pension liabilities is deeply misleading.
    I take it that these Eurocrats aren't on defined contribution pensions schemes like the proles.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
    According to google he's 6'4" tall.

    I never realised he's so big.

    That's probably because both Melania and Ivanka are six footers themselves.
    If he is 6'4 then he must be ~ 270 with that frame.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
    According to google he's 6'4" tall.

    I never realised he's so big.

    That's probably because both Melania and Ivanka are six footers themselves.
    Isn't it a rule of POTUS elections that the taller candidate almost always wins? I think Kerry is the recent exception.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Nonsense. It was always the case that some very complicated unwinding of obligations was going to have to be done as a result of our leaving the EU, with big-looking numbers involved. These are worst-case, think of a number and double it type figures (and as rcs pointed out last thread, to the extent that they are pension obligations they are probably gross figures with no discount applied to take account of the time before they fall due) and the killer point is this: they are not penalty clause type claims which would simply not arise if we stayed in, they are commensurate with what our obligations would have been had we stayed in, with the difference that they are finite while if we stayed they would be open ended. So if we can't afford the cost of getting out, we certainly can't afford the cost of staying in.

    £40 billion is just under three years gross contributions, or 4 years net contributions. So what the Eurofanatics are saying is that because we don't want to pay the equivalent of 3 or 4 years contributions we should instead carry on paying contributions for ever.

    Not their brightest argument.
    While I speak for no-one except myself, my point was solely about people using lazily undiscounted numbers. Say there's a 21 year old British Eurocrat in Brussels. He is entitled to a pension, and that will run from his 67th Birthday to (say) his 97th. 30 years of pension payments will dwarf his current salary costs. If you simply add up 30 years of these payments you get a big number.

    But if you deposited a very small amount (say £5,000) in the stock market today, given nominal earnings growth of 3.5% and a dividend yield of 2.5%, then you can comfortably pay his pension in 45 years time. The media quotes £90,000 of pension payments! But the real liability is 5% of that level.

    Now, sure, I've used an extreme example, but using undiscounted numbers for pension liabilities is deeply misleading.
    I take it that these Eurocrats aren't on defined contribution pensions schemes like the proles.
    I think you'd struggle to find a public servant in the UK on defined contribution too.

    In the private sector, there is a terrible generational divide too: those older than about 50 are all on defined benefit, while the rest of us are on defined contribution*.

    * Of course, defined benefit discourages labour mobility, and allows firms to pay workers less, as leaving messes up your final salary scheme.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    The Hill
    JUST IN: Russia considering giving Snowden to Trump as ‘gift’: report https://t.co/73P7ZvIO4s https://t.co/tjcopl9kfN
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,320

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    Not that unusual! Indeed there is some evidence that mortality for obese people can be lower than those of normal BMI.

    http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2017/january/being-overweight-protects-heart-surgery-patients-research-suggests
    I bow to your specialist knowledge. Not in rude health from my (amateur) view.
    I agree, but the obesity paradox is an interesting one. Interesting to statistic interested public health physicians anyway!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_paradox

    I am of the reverse causation hypothesis. Sudden weighloss is a feature of dying people.
    Cheers for that. It is genuinely enlightening. Not something I was aware of. I try to learn at least 1 new thing per day, and that certainly is with 5 mins to spare.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,347
    edited February 2017
    PlatoSaid said:

    The Hill
    JUST IN: Russia considering giving Snowden to Trump as ‘gift’: report https://t.co/73P7ZvIO4s https://t.co/tjcopl9kfN

    He has obviously spilled all his guts of everything he knows to the FSB and is now served his purpose.
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
    Dividing by 14 in your head isn't the easiest thing at this time of night! (235lb = 16st 11lb in English)
  • Pulpstar said:

    dixiedean said:

    franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    Not to mention his obesity. He takes no exercise (apart from golf in a buggy). It is unusual to see a very overweight male in their 70's.
    He doesn't look obese to me.

    How much does he weigh ?
    The 235 lb figure is frankly laughable. Around 255-260 would be my guess.
    According to google he's 6'4" tall.

    I never realised he's so big.

    That's probably because both Melania and Ivanka are six footers themselves.
    Isn't it a rule of POTUS elections that the taller candidate almost always wins? I think Kerry is the recent exception.
    So they say.

    Though curiously many of the military men have been among the shorter Presidents:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States

    I guess Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, William McKinlay and Teddy Roosevelt didn't need height to look manly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    Damn, wish I could bet on Betfair with liabilities on credit sometimes.

    Nigel Farage is at 23.0 to lay for next PM !
  • I prefer John Bercow to Andrew Neil.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024

    Scott_P said:

    @SkyNewsBreak: President Trump says he is considering a "brand new order" to ensure travel ban stays in place which could be issued on Monday or Tuesday

    Is there anything stopping him continuing to draft slightly different versions?
    him being bat shit crazy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,179
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I've just found out what Weller is singing at the end of 'Beat Surrender'... been bugging me for years!!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    isam said:

    I've just found out what Weller is singing at the end of 'Beat Surrender'... been bugging me for years!!

    You mean the "succumb" bit?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,646
    rcs1000 said:

    I think you'd struggle to find a public servant in the UK on defined contribution...

    On the contrary, you'd find one quite easily, at least in England and Wales. Since about 2006/7, new starters don't get entry into the defined benefit pension scheme.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,972
    edited February 2017
    Did Abe when Trump met May? Trump tweeted he was very much looking forward to meeting her
    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/817915516018892805?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    I've just found out what Weller is singing at the end of 'Beat Surrender'... been bugging me for years!!

    You mean the "succumb" bit?
    At the end he kind of rants over the refrain... it's never on the lyrics sheet

    "Wake me up with your amphetamine blast
    Take me by the collar and throw me out into the world
    Rock me gently and send me dreaming of something tender
    I am yours and i've come to pay homage to the
    BEAT SURRENDER"
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    isam said:

    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    I've just found out what Weller is singing at the end of 'Beat Surrender'... been bugging me for years!!

    You mean the "succumb" bit?
    At the end he kind of rants over the refrain... it's never on the lyrics sheet

    "Wake me up with your amphetamine blast
    Take me by the collar and throw me out into the world
    Rock me gently and send me dreaming of something tender
    I am yours and i've come to pay homage to the
    BEAT SURRENDER"
    I think I'd better listen to it again and see if I can pick up those words...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited February 2017
    scotslass said:

    I prefer John Bercow to Andrew Neil.

    So what was it that first attracted you to the grandstanding, virtue signalling, publicity seeking, self important, solipsistic, egotistical, preening, pretentious, puffed up, postulating pompous little pixie in love with the sound of his own voice with a long running opposition to free speech, sensible debate and proper analysis?

    Did he remind you of someone?

    A hero of yours?
  • And if she had (which as others pointed out, she did) you'd have described it as 'embarrassing and humiliating'......
  • Mr Bercow pledged that he would serve for nine years when he took over as Speaker in June 2009. Under this timetable he would step down in June next year.
    But he has refused to commit publicly to a departure date in recent years. And a senior Tory source said he was now canvassing opinion about the idea of staying in post until the next election in May 2020 – almost two years beyond his promised exit date.



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213994/I-want-stay-2020-says-John-Bercow.html
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think you'd struggle to find a public servant in the UK on defined contribution...

    On the contrary, you'd find one quite easily, at least in England and Wales. Since about 2006/7, new starters don't get entry into the defined benefit pension scheme.

    I joined civil service in 2010 - my pension was guaranteed to be 1/66th of my career average salary per year worked. I think that's defined benefit. I certainly pay % of salary in but I don't think that was linked in any way to what I will hopefully receive.
  • rkrkrk said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think you'd struggle to find a public servant in the UK on defined contribution...

    On the contrary, you'd find one quite easily, at least in England and Wales. Since about 2006/7, new starters don't get entry into the defined benefit pension scheme.

    I joined civil service in 2010 - my pension was guaranteed to be 1/66th of my career average salary per year worked. I think that's defined benefit. I certainly pay % of salary in but I don't think that was linked in any way to what I will hopefully receive.
    You're doing well to be on defined benefit - but even private schemes used to be better (typically 40ths of last 3yr average) - though I doubt such schemes are around anymore. "Who ate all the pies?" "The baby boomers". But then we will go out and vote.....
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited February 2017
    AFAIK most people in the public sector are still in defined benefit schemes. What has largely ended is Defined Benefit schemes based on final salary ie. most schemes are now based on average salary

    Average salary schemes are supposed to be cheaper, although they have the arguable disadvantage for employers that they do nothing to discourage labour mobility.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,203
    alex. said:

    AFAIK most people in the public sector are still in defined benefit schemes. What has largely ended is Defined Benefit schemes based on final salary ie. most schemes are now based on average salary

    Average salary schemes are supposed to be cheaper, although they have the arguable disadvantage for employers that they do nothing to discourage labour mobility.

    Average salary seems fairer to me. The idea you get a promotion shortly before retirement and then are entitled to loads more money until you die seems wrong.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    According to the roguePotusStaff twitter account he's quite smitten with Abe.

    it's likely they will get on well as their interests align too - Abe is a nationalistic conservative who has been trying to remilitarise Japan - trump's comments about no longer propping up NATO allies actually play into Abe's hands for convincing others on need to build up military
  • Fascinating article on the role of tumult within the White House:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-method-in-trumps-tumult-1486770583

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Good morning all. I used to work for a company called DEC (sadly, no longer with us). You could buy pension @ 1/50th, so retire after 30 years rather than 40.

    When I joined the civil service, my 22 years of private pension under that scheme bought me 16 years of the extant civil service pension (don't ask me what scheme, I can't remember!).

    Civil service pensions used to be seriously good.
  • John_M said:


    Civil service pensions used to be seriously good.

    That was part of the 'deal' which had Civil service salaries poorer than Private Sector - then that got torn up under New Labour and Civil Service salaries roared ahead while Civil Service Pensions stayed in place. Then Brown's raid on Pension schemes sank the already weaker Private Sector final salary defined benefit schemes.......its been a right Horlicks.....
  • franklyn said:

    What odds are there available that Trump doesn't last his full four years? Of the 45 presidents, Nixon was forced out, four died of natural causes and four were assassinated. That's 20%. Given Trump's age and temperament, anything over 5-1 must be a value bet. I would exclude the possibility of placing the bet and then assassinating Trump; that would be cheating, and I don't approve of violence in any context.

    The market thinks attaches a much higher probability to Trump's demise as president.

    Ladbrokes has 11/10 Trump to leave office via impeachment or resignation before the end of his first term, and 8/11 Trump to last the full term.
This discussion has been closed.