politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now taking a more positive view of Trump’s survival ch
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now taking a more positive view of Trump’s survival chances
On the UK betting markets at least punters are taking a more positive view about Donald Trump’s chances of staying in the post till 2020 or beyond.
0
Comments
-
Primus inter pares0
-
Second like Hilary.0
-
Naughty. My first post was deleted after I made it and saw it here!0
-
Glorious fourth!0
-
Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!0
-
Most Presidents do badly in midterms and Trump is unlikely to be any different, so I think the Democrats may well take the House. However the GOP can hardly take him on without losing most of his supporters so he will stay and early polling shows a majority of Americans support his bombing of Syria. I expect Trump to be re elected in 2020 as I expect May to be returned to power in that year, especially as I think the Democratic base will go for a more radical liberal choice like Warren after Hillary's defeat last year following UK Labour in their own mini Corbynista temper tantrum0
-
Vanilla is working perfectly, no posts have been deleted!IanB2 said:Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yfAeMtcURg0/hqdefault.jpg0 -
The competition for first is getting more fixed than an SNP instructed poll.0
-
Vanilla quirk. It's hereIanB2 said:Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1502062/#Comment_1502062
0 -
Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-395729020 -
To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.0
-
How convenient...TheScreamingEagles said:
Vanilla quirk. It's hereIanB2 said:Someone in administration is playing dirty with the initial posts!
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1502062/#Comment_1502062
0 -
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
We're at the fake apology stage.
The CEO of United Airlines has apologised for the "truly horrific" removal of a passenger from an overbooked flight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-395728410 -
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
I can't see the editor of the Evening Standard ever returning to lead the Tory Party again let alone become PMTheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
I thought George Osborne was already Post Menopausal - the hot flushes of government well past him.TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.TheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/851894608334336000/photo/1Nigelb said:Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-395729020 -
The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Not so much alternate facts as alternate history ?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.
0 -
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?0 -
He's a modern day polymath.kle4 said:
Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.TheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Did USA and Russia "stage" the whole thing to shore up The Donald?0
-
You oppose exempting rape victims from the limit?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some cloutTheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
It is difficult to see how a bullet will stop him serving out a full term when he is.....bullet proof!DavidL said:On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.
0 -
Damn, didn't spot that!surbiton said:
It is difficult to see how a bullet will stop him serving out a full term when he is.....bullet proof!DavidL said:On topic this is surely just some sanity returning to the market and overcoming the Trump haters irrational beliefs. With a Republican dominated Congress Trump is bullet proof. Only ill health or a bullet is going to stop him serving out his term.
0 -
To both people that read it?kle4 said:
Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
?Philip_Thompson said:
You oppose exempting rape victims from the limit?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Is that the same level of assurance as when you told us Hilary Benn was the Michael Howard to Corbyn's IDS?HYUFD said:
The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some cloutTheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
Silly woman, more outrage than the situation will bear (because it's clear to everyone that Spicer is just a twit), and she should fire whoever drafted the heading of that press release.HYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/851894608334336000/photo/1Nigelb said:Does Trump employ his spokesman to make himself look borderline competent in comparison ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572902
Passover is an interesting one, though: we have Jews partying because it's great if a lot of babies die, provided they are foreign, while the Christians are about to hold pretendy cannibal picnics to celebrate the death by torture of an inoffensive religious nutter. Religion, where would we be without it?0 -
Practically doubled the circulation by posting it here.HaroldO said:
To both people that read it?kle4 said:
Whether or not the policy is, despite reporting, not unreasonable, and whether or not one considers the source the headline and how many read it, it is definitely not the type of story you want popping up as a politician, since you have to explain away such a terrible headline in the first place.calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
hps://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264 0 -
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
The Democrats seem inclined to double down on their strategy of alienating swing voters.HYUFD said:Most Presidents do badly in midterms and Trump is unlikely to be any different, so I think the Democrats may well take the House. However the GOP can hardly take him on without losing most of his supporters so he will stay and early polling shows a majority of Americans support his bombing of Syria. I expect Trump to be re elected in 2020 as I expect May to be returned to power in that year, especially as I think the Democratic base will go for a more radical liberal choice like Warren after Hillary's defeat last year following UK Labour in their own mini Corbynista temper tantrum
0 -
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Edit. And I have to pay back all my CB for my son and daughter. Quite right too. Money needs to be spent where it is most needed.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Yes, but if you are going to limit child benefit it is something that needs to be accounted for.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Because of the form that has to be filled out to claim the exemption.surbiton said:
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.surbiton said:
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Interesting article by Danny Finkenstein: (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/no-leavers-are-not-going-to-change-their-minds-fs0bj2rrf0 -
I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
And your evidence for that is?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Here's the formfoxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/606978/nnc1.pdf0 -
Well they could always make that choice of course. It is not mandatory to apply.Sean_F said:
I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
-
It's one of those grimly practical things that most people don't think of in these cases, but have to be accounted for in the real world when enacting a policy like this.Sean_F said:
I suppose the alternative would be to tell rape victims they won't get child benefit - but they'll be spared having to sign a form.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
It's tabloid fodder though.0 -
Writing in the Daily Record, Ms Dugdale urged the Scottish Conservative leader to condemn the “horrifically cruel and uncaring policy”, and praised SNP MP Alison Thewliss for campaigning against it.calum said:twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/851902449153708032
No hyperbole here whatsoever.0 -
What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?calum said:0 -
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Shocking that they are not all ashamed, shows how nasty the Tories really are.isam said:
I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.surbiton said:
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.0
-
https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/851896645230972928SquareRoot said:I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
0 -
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shockingsurbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
May surely only gave him the job in the first place to give him enough rope to hang himself. She probably needs to hang on a bit longer so she can fire him during the Brexit negotiations as an apparent sop to the EU27.SquareRoot said:I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
0 -
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/Ishmael_Z said:
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
He has defied quite a few political rules in his time, makes it harder to speculate.SquareRoot said:I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
It sounds plausible.DavidL said:
And your evidence for that is?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
I bet(figuratively) he'll not be an MP, or not be editor, 24 months from now.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's a modern day polymath.kle4 said:
Still going to be difficult when he leaves parliament in the next year or so, given current career priorities.TheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
I wonder if he might not quit of his own accord soon. Judging by his leadership campaign (or lack thereof), he's pretty thin-skinned when he starts getting some media criticism.williamglenn said:
May surely only gave him the job in the first place to give him enough rope to hang himself. She probably needs to hang on a bit longer so she can fire him during the Brexit negotiations as an apparent sop to the EU27.SquareRoot said:I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
0 -
No surprise that you support it.HYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
They'd never give Russia an ultimatum. Maybe we should have pushed for a penultimatum?Scott_P said:
http//twitter.com/mshelicat/status/851896645230972928SquareRoot said:I am surprised this isn't the thread on Boris;'s survival chances . He has been terrible today, just hopeless.
0 -
I would suggest that when you get to the point where you have to make these sorts of exceptions to a policy, the time is probably long overdue to go back and look at the policy as a whole rather than just trying to defend the exceptions.isam said:
I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.surbiton said:
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Ishmael_Z said:
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Have a look at the form RobD posted at 10:01.
0 -
That headline says far more about Scottish nationalists than it does about Ruth Davidsonmalcolmg said:
It describes her perfectly though, shocking that she has more faces then the town clock. She will obey orders from HQ and then claim to be innocent and only doing her job.calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Provided he was in the Shadow Cabinet which he no longer is and last I heard Osborne was no longer in the Cabinet eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Is that the same level of assurance as when you told us Hilary Benn was the Michael Howard to Corbyn's IDS?HYUFD said:
The UK will last far longer than George's career I can assure you of that, he is cashing in while he still has some cloutTheScreamingEagles said:
The United Kingdom or what's left of it after the Brexiteers have broken it.kle4 said:
Does it have to be Prime Minister of the UK, or could he form his own micro nation to speed things along?TheScreamingEagles said:To avoid future attacks on my integrity, I shall no longer post first on new threads until George Osborne becomes PM.
So not long to wait.0 -
You know the Tories are in the wrong completely Rob when it is so horrific Labour are against them.RobD said:0 -
The form requires one of a rape conviction, a CICA award, or a recognised professional to support that it was an abusive relationship. The father needs to not be cohabiting. I can seesocial workers being supportive of their clients.Ishmael_Z said:
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
The number of children conceived this way must be small. I would have written such rules differently, with discretionary supporton grounds of hardship.
0 -
Interesting article on Corbyn from the Guardian:
"But even some of those closest to Corbyn now talk of “steering the ship safely home”: completing the political project of shifting Labour off the centrist trajectory of the Blair years, towards a less interventionist foreign policy; and a more full-throated opposition to public spending cuts.
They believe Corbyn’s leadership of the party, and the transformation in the ideological makeup of the membership, has changed the political landscape so that Labour would be safe in the hands of a leader from a different strand of party opinion, such as Lisa Nandy or even Yvette Cooper.
But diehard Corbynites still fear unless they can win a crucial rule change at September’s party conference – dubbed the “McDonnell clause” by critics – that would allow a contender from the left wing of the party to run in a future leadership race with nominations from only 5% of MPs, they will risk a return to a brand of Labour politics they despise."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/11/corbyn-embarks-on-an-easter-policy-blitz-but-is-it-too-little-too-late0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
I would suggest that when you get to the point where you have to make these sorts of exceptions to a policy, the time is probably long overdue to go back and look at the policy as a whole rather than just trying to defend the exceptions.isam said:
I don't know, but I am sure I recall some Tories on here saying they were ashamed of their party over this.surbiton said:
Why ? Have I missed something ? I, of course, believe there should be no limit on anybody.isam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Pretty much every benefit these days has hard cases and complex & invasive forms to fill out.
0 -
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely properisam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.Sandpit said:
What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?calum said:0 -
-
Looking at the subsets of today's YouGov.
The Conservatives lead Labour in :
2/2 Genders
3/4 Ages
2/2 Social Grades
5/5 Regions
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x4597y9nuj/TimesResults_170406_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
The single subset which Labour is ahead on has just 39% on the 10/10 certainty to vote scale.
0 -
No surprise that you don'tmalcolmg said:
No surprise that you support it.HYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Aren't there two very emotional space cops in The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy?isam said:0 -
For heartless Tory barstewards maybeHYUFD said:
Not at all, limiting tax credits/child welfare benefits to 2 children is one of the most popular policies the government has yet produced but exempting rape victims is entirely properisam said:
Some Tories are embarrassed by this legislation too I believeHYUFD said:
Dreadfully misleading headline, as DavidL states this is exempting rape victims from the 2 child limit for tax credits etc, Scottish nationalists at their worst, with headlines like this I even prefer Corbynistascalum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/8518908213643632640 -
Just one other signature, from someone you have spoken to at the time *or subsequently* about the coercion etc. It really isn't very difficult to see widespread exploitation of the exception.HaroldO said:
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/Ishmael_Z said:
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.malcolmg said:
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shockingsurbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?0 -
What would be your proposal, other than "Evil nasty Tories"?malcolmg said:
They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.Sandpit said:
What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?calum said:
I dare say that if this exception had not been in the legislation, you'd be shouting "But what about the rape victims?" just as loudly.0 -
A dentist friend of mine uses a version of that routine to calm his more nervous patients.isam said:
Works very well, he says!0 -
I don't believe it has to be proved in a court of law, and I don't think the father is involved at all.surbiton said:
I am beginning to realise it is not so straight-forward. I think it is the ignominy of having to fill in the form which is difficult for some people to accept.malcolmg said:
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shockingsurbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.
Does "rape" have to be proved ? This is a classic case of something which was perhaps well intentioned begin with, takes on complications simply to implement it. What about the right of the father ? Does he have a say ?0 -
malcolmg said:
They are suggesting that the woman should not have to fill in an 8 page form to prove she was raped to be able to get child credits. It is shocking that anyone can defend this , you should be hanging your head in shame.Sandpit said:
What are the SNP suggesting, that there shouldn't be an exemption for rape victims in the legislation?calum said:
The woman fills out 1 page - the rest is completed by the healthcare/social worker.
0 -
Did SNP MPs abuse short money on NYC visit?
https://order-order.com/2017/04/11/snps-controversial-nyc-visit-timeline-know/0 -
Malcolm, did you look at the form? All the claimant has to do is say she is eligible. The details of why she may well be eligible are provided by the professional. Do you really think CB should be payable for all children? If you do fair enough. If not, I don't see an alternative to this. It seems highly compassionate to me.malcolmg said:
It means they have to prove that the child was born due to non - consensual intercourse, 8 page description of why the person was not jailed and so how do they prove otherwise. Shockingsurbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Ok. I've always hated government forms, when my partner was filling in hers for her permanent residency in the UK she had to go through pages and pages. Thank fuck she didn't ask for any help, in fact she ended up teaching the Home Office people how to fill it in.Ishmael_Z said:
Just one other signature, from someone you have spoken to at the time *or subsequently* about the coercion etc. It really isn't very difficult to see widespread exploitation of the exception.HaroldO said:
Having read the form, you need two other signatures one of which has to be a healthcare professional or a social worker. If I read it rightly/Ishmael_Z said:
That is an excellent point. In the stereotype case this is aimed at (woman with 17 children, all called Wayne or Waynetta, by 17 fathers) why would she not claim abusive relationship and lack of consent, and how could her claim be disproved?foxinsoxuk said:
What evidence is required that the child was conceived without consent? surely it requires more than the mothers word?williamglenn said:
If a Labour government were collecting data, for whatever reason, identifying children who were conceived without consent, the right wing would be apoplectic about statist intrusion.DavidL said:
Yes, that is exactly what it means. What is supposedly outrageous is that they have to complete a form to claim the exemption. The form gave TSE collywobbles for some reason I didn't quite follow. Oh, and those forced to have children in an abusive relationship are exempt to. Just too wicked for words really.surbiton said:
Does this mean she supports a clause which says that a rape victim should not be subject to the two-child Child Benefit rule ? Does the newspaper think it will be unpopular ?DavidL said:
This will be backing the fact that people who have been raped should be exempt from the limit on CB?calum said:The story not yet on the site - but the headline isn't great:
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/851890821364363264
Well yes. Who isn't?
I believe there should be no limit whatsoever on Child Benefits.
There must be something else, otherwise, the story will actually help her.0 -
Re Melanchon
If he did reach the run-off and even more so win wouldn't that be an enormous boost to Corbyn and his supporters..
I really couldn't see Corbyn giving up with an example like that to emulate.
0 -
Only two genders?another_richard said:Looking at the subsets of today's YouGov.
The Conservatives lead Labour in :
2/2 Genders
3/4 Ages
2/2 Social Grades
5/5 Regions
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/x4597y9nuj/TimesResults_170406_VI_Trackers_W.pdf
The single subset which Labour is ahead on has just 39% on the 10/10 certainty to vote scale.
Off to the reeducation camp with you....0
This discussion has been closed.