politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s first electoral test sees the Republicans holding on i
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s first electoral test sees the Republicans holding on in Kansas with a majority down 20%
GOP holds on in Kansas by-election in President Trump's 1st electoral test. Maj down from 27% to 7.2% https://t.co/pSBHzlzf8V pic.twitter.com/nvPaHl9YFv
Comments
-
first, like Dems in Georgia.0
-
Second. Again.0
-
I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.0
-
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
If he is then that would be a value lay.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
About as far down the league as Arsenal.0
-
What is the cost of an automated phone call in this country? I assume we’re going to get a lot more of them in the future.0
-
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.0 -
They're banned in the UK, for good reason.OldKingCole said:What is the cost of an automated phone call in this country? I assume we’re going to get a lot more of them in the future.
In the US, politicians have exempted themselves from the unsolicited call legislation, with the result that constituents get several automated calls a day running up to an election. I'm sure they don't realise how much they annoy everyone, but the parties obviously think they still work.0 -
No; because he’s a prize berk.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
Surely by-elections are as free a hit for voters in the USA as in Britain?0
-
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.0 -
So no Lib Dem surge in Kansas, then?0
-
No but its good news for Remainers ...TwistedFireStopper said:So no Lib Dem surge in Kansas, then?
0 -
Trump threads are sooo yawn.. Cannot we go back to "Corbyn is crap" threads , so everyone can feel at home
0 -
FPT:Mortimer said:
Just catching up on last night's interesting thread on tax rates and benefit entitlements.
Taking the Cowley Tech historian's long view, it seems that in modern Britain Labour only wins when it accepts that people, rather than the state, are entitled to keep the majority of their individual wealth and income. Brown took this too far in trying to create a client state and was widely rejected at the ballot box. The Danny555s of this world must surely see that the difference between not taking someone else's money and not giving large amounts of someone else's money to a third person in return for little but residence is the difference between power and Labour's decline...0 -
Off topic question - I recall there is/was lots of evidence that assigning a party to a policy causes the other parties partisans to be more likely to oppose that policy. EG "do you support A" versus "the Tories have proposed A, do you support A" sees two very different figures.
Is there polling evidence that shows this affect exists for both parties in the USA? Eg that Democrats are more likely to oppose a policy if they believe it is proposed by Trump than by Obama even if its the same policy? And vice-versa.0 -
Yes, lay the favourite(s). More likely is a general reshuffle at some point, with musical chairs leaving someone unexpected without a seat, than a scandal hit minister resigning.david_herdson said:
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Didn't you once write a thread about political 'events' actually happening much less often than is commonly perceived?0 -
FPT rkk, it's almost impossible for the Dems to win the Senate in 2018, given the seats being contested.0
-
Good morning, everyone.
F1: Turkey could return to the calendar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39551386
The Turkish circuit was pretty good, and the site of the infamous on-track collision between Vettel and Webber which allowed McLaren to win.
Must've been a long time ago...0 -
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
No true patriot could want Boris to be our face to the world. He is a bumbling, lazy, incompetent, seeking to operate way beyond the limit of his abilities while the globe laughs at and/or disdains him. The only reasons he is foreign secretary are to do with internal Tory party politics. He is the living personification of Brexit Britain :-)Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.
0 -
Yes. Republican voters' attitudes towards Russia changed markedly when Trump sought warmer relations with Putin.Philip_Thompson said:Off topic question - I recall there is/was lots of evidence that assigning a party to a policy causes the other parties partisans to be more likely to oppose that policy. EG "do you support A" versus "the Tories have proposed A, do you support A" sees two very different figures.
Is there polling evidence that shows this affect exists for both parties in the USA? Eg that Democrats are more likely to oppose a policy if they believe it is proposed by Trump than by Obama even if its the same policy? And vice-versa.0 -
Boris is genuinely popular amongst CDEs - unless and until those who dislike him understand that this sort of judgement can survive, nay perhaps be enhanced by a few snubs by self interested politicians abroad they will not get a sniff of power...Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
May, Fox and Davis are all probably happy to have Boris take the flak, while they get on with the serious work behind the scenes. He's a useful idiot lightning rod to have around.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
Still doesn't make them right.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
As long as there is some serious work going on behind the scenes.Sandpit said:
May, Fox and Davis are all probably happy to have Boris take the flak, while they get on with the serious work behind the scenes. He's a useful idiot lightning rod to have around.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
I think Putin's plan is much more sane than Boris's. At least his leaves Syria with a government. Boris's leaves the country open to a bunch of psychotic killers. Remember Assad is the only person standing between 80% of his population and slaughter. What's more women are emancipated in Syria which is a considerable improvment on the British governments allies in the area.Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.-1 -
O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class passenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html0 -
Good point. It would need an enormous anti-Trump backlash.Sean_F said:FPT rkk, it's almost impossible for the Dems to win the Senate in 2018, given the seats being contested.
Edit - i do think if his original healthcare bill had passed we would see some red states react against republicans in a big way.0 -
The cowardice of Germany and Italy will prevent the EU being a superpower any time soon.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
European military influence will continue to be leveraged via the Anglo-French axis.0 -
They dont have a problem, the CEO fake apologised yesterday - after revealing his and the company's true thoughts in an email - so it's all good.Sandpit said:O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class paggenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html0 -
Dunno about Boris, but Oscar Munoz isn't going to last the week.kle4 said:
They dont have a problem, the CEO fake apologised yesterday - after revealing his and the company's true thoughts in an email - so it's all good.Sandpit said:O/T, but for anyone that doesn't think United Airlines have a structural customer service problem, read and weep that last week they kicked a full fare paying first class paggenger to the back of the plane because they wanted his seat for "someone more important" - then totally stonewalled him when he complained.
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html0 -
I've worked in the Middle East many times including in Dubai where I believe you work. If you ask any of the more civilised players in the region-say Lebanon or even Dubai (though the government is questionable)-they will tell you the real baddies are the SaudisSandpit said:
May, Fox and Davis are all probably happy to have Boris take the flak, while they get on with the serious work behind the scenes. He's a useful idiot lightning rod to have around.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
Boris has already helped to deliver what Putin wanted from the UK.Roger said:
I think Putin's plan is much more sane than Boris's. At least his leaves Syria with a government. Boris's leaves the country open to a bunch of psychotic killers. Remember Assad is the only person standing between 80% of his population and slaughter. What's more women are emancipated in Syria which is a considerable improvment on the British governments allies in the area.Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.
0 -
Putin wanted an extra £350 million a week for the NHS?SouthamObserver said:
Boris has already helped to deliver what Putin wanted from the UK.Roger said:
I think Putin's plan is much more sane than Boris's. At least his leaves Syria with a government. Boris's leaves the country open to a bunch of psychotic killers. Remember Assad is the only person standing between 80% of his population and slaughter. What's more women are emancipated in Syria which is a considerable improvment on the British governments allies in the area.Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.0 -
Every faction in Syria is led by evil people. It's just a question of degree (IS being the worst).Roger said:
I've worked in the middle East many times including in Dubai where I believe you work. If you ask any of the more civilised players in the region say Lebanon or even Dubai (though the government is questionable) they will tell you the real baddies in the region are saudi ArabiaSandpit said:
May, Fox and Davis are all probably happy to have Boris take the flak, while they get on with the serious work behind the scenes. He's a useful idiot lightning rod to have around.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
And once we withdraw? The French aren't going to pay for a continental defence plan.Casino_Royale said:
The cowardice of Germany and Italy will prevent the EU being a superpower any time soon.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
European military influence will continue to be leveraged via the Anglo-French axis.0 -
Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonnell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them0 -
Something like that. Trump has a floor of true believers at some level though.Sean_F said:
That said - if c. 24m had lost health insurance with his bill - i think that would have done the trick.0 -
Voters say the PM May most resembles is Thatcher https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/8520558431640821760
-
I'm sure that's true, but if the policy is unsustainable, that didn't stop Cameron and Osborne from throwing the goodie at the electorate. McDonnell won't get the chance, but parties will sometimes follow through, even when they shouldn't.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them0 -
Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.0
-
Truth...SouthamObserver said:
No true patriot could want Boris to be our face to the world. He is a bumbling, lazy, incompetent, seeking to operate way beyond the limit of his abilities while the globe laughs at and/or disdains him. The only reasons he is foreign secretary are to do with internal Tory party politics. He is the living personification of Brexit Britain :-)Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.
0 -
I'm sure superficial similarities, like gender, have nothing to do with that impression.HYUFD said:Voters say the PM May most resembles is Thatcher https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/852055843164082176
0 -
The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control0
-
Mr. Observer, must agree.
I imagine Boris will remain in place until after the election, and then (if the Conservatives win) will be tossed overboard.0 -
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3313630/weak-g7-countries-bottled-decision-to-stand-up-to-putin/Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
0 -
Trump is not average and has historically low ratings at this stage.HarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
Republicans hold three branches of government - normally a sign of a big loss coming.0 -
Indeed though what about the other way around with the Democrats moving the opposite direction?Sean_F said:
Yes. Republican voters' attitudes towards Russia changed markedly when Trump sought warmer relations with Putin.Philip_Thompson said:Off topic question - I recall there is/was lots of evidence that assigning a party to a policy causes the other parties partisans to be more likely to oppose that policy. EG "do you support A" versus "the Tories have proposed A, do you support A" sees two very different figures.
Is there polling evidence that shows this affect exists for both parties in the USA? Eg that Democrats are more likely to oppose a policy if they believe it is proposed by Trump than by Obama even if its the same policy? And vice-versa.0 -
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
You don't think Assad, a man who last week used chemical weapons on his own people, is a psychotic killer? You don't think dropping chemical weapons on a town is slaughter?Roger said:
I think Putin's plan is much more sane than Boris's. At least his leaves Syria with a government. Boris's leaves the country open to a bunch of psychotic killers. Remember Assad is the only person standing between 80% of his population and slaughter. What's more women are emancipated in Syria which is a considerable improvment on the British governments allies in the area.Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.0 -
Sources indicate that United Airlines and Yorkshire Airways in merger talks. Not too sure it's a positive fit for the English company :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VLYpKGVBUg0 -
Trump's approval rating was as low as Clinton's at this stage of his presidency if not lower a few weeks ago and he has had a similarly disastrous healthcare policy fail, though Syria may have boosted him a littleHarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
0 -
The GOP picked up 63 seats in the 2010 midterms, so such a change is not without recent precedent. But the Dems will find it hard to move things in a similar direction.HarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
0 -
Although on further reflection, to be fair Boris is just a microcosm of the Conservative Party as a whole.SouthamObserver said:
No true patriot could want Boris to be our face to the world. He is a bumbling, lazy, incompetent, seeking to operate way beyond the limit of his abilities while the globe laughs at and/or disdains him. The only reasons he is foreign secretary are to do with internal Tory party politics. He is the living personification of Brexit Britain :-)Philip_Thompson said:
It's sad to see the left-wingers here stoop to backing Russia here in an attempt to score partisan points.MaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.0 -
Mr. W, that's a vile slur on Yorkshire Airways. There's nowt wrong wi' them!0
-
The last GOP President with a rating anywhere near as low as Trump this early in his presidency was Reagan in and the Democrats made significant gains in 1982not_on_fire said:
The GOP picked up 63 seats in the 2010 midterms, so such a change is not without recent precedent. But the Dems will find it hard to move things in a similar direction.HarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
0 -
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
On topic. You can't compare Presidential results in an area with by-elections. The voters were choosing two entirely different things for (possibly) very different reasons.0
-
No, the gerrymandering is concentrated in the south and would only save the GOP if it was close to tied, a 10% swing as in Kansas would see a Democratic landslide and Pelosi easily sweeping into power as the next Speakernot_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
In 2006 the Democrats won by over 30 seats on a 52% to 44% margin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_20060 -
I am indeed in Dubai. I don't disagree too much with that, have said before that once the US becomes self-sufficient in fossil fuels (3-5 years away) then the attitude towards Saudi will change overnight. To be fair, I think they are belatedly realising this in KSA but there's a long long way to go.Roger said:
I've worked in the Middle East many times including in Dubai where I believe you work. If you ask any of the more civilised players in the region-say Lebanon or even Dubai (though the government is questionable)-they will tell you the real baddies are the SaudisSandpit said:
May, Fox and Davis are all probably happy to have Boris take the flak, while they get on with the serious work behind the scenes. He's a useful idiot lightning rod to have around.Roger said:
For some reason my paste function doesn't work but it's difficult to look at a paper this morning which doesn't have BORIS followed closely by HUMILIATED. Try the Mail and the IndependentMaxPB said:
Why? Because the Germans and Italians aren't willing to take their fair share of economic pain to inflict sanctions on Russia? Boris deserves credit for at least trying to get something done, it's the Germans (yet again) who are dragging their feet because Germany is now just a mercantile nation who looks for economic advantage regardless of the situation.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
As for Syria, the opportunity for change was in 2013, there's now no good options on the table. Showing no response to the use of chemical weapons was also not an option, the short sharp shock will hopefully do the trick.0 -
Boris presumably because he is the loosest of loose cannons and will do something stupid at some stage.david_herdson said:
The invariable rule with that market is lay the favourite.Roger said:I'm not sure whether a market exists on the first cabinet minister to lose his or her job but Boris must be a hot favourite.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Hammond after the budget.
Fox because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I agree the first two are poor value. Losing such a senior figure is something serious. If it happens, it will either need careful planning or bring down the government. Hammond appears doubly safe because it's hard to see anyone else who could command the same respect as Chancellor and no. 2 in the government at present.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.0 -
On average, the Opposition gains 25 seats in the House, in the first mid-term elections, which would be just about enough for the Dems.not_on_fire said:
The GOP picked up 63 seats in the 2010 midterms, so such a change is not without recent precedent. But the Dems will find it hard to move things in a similar direction.HarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
0 -
The government keeps raising the state pension age so that fewer and fewer people can get it. We're told that it will be raised again to 67 sometime after 2020. So that's 2021 at the latest then - forgive my cynicism, but every date so far initially announced has been brought forward in recent years. That would for women mean a rise in the state pension age of 7 years within an 11 year period.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.0 -
F1: Ladbrokes has some Alonso specials. They are:
To leave McLaren before the end of this season, 5
Drive for Ferrari in 2018, 4
Drive for Renault in 2018, 6
If Mercedes' odds were up, I'd be rather more interested. I'm not sure I see him racing for Ferrari. Renault would need to rapidly improve and they're not there. Mercedes has a second driver with a single year contract and a main driver who might retire quite soon.
Leaving McLaren before the season's up is possible but perhaps not likely.
Anyway, not betting on this but thought others might be interested.0 -
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
I never get the impression that party is such a big thing in the US. So much more seems to turn on the personal standing of the candidate. I don't think that taking the swing from this bye election is particularly meaningful.
That said, I would expect Trump to lose seats in the House in 2018. Presidents usually do. Loss of the House is possible but unlikely. Loss of the Senate looks vanishingly unlikely. So he is still safe from impeachment.0 -
In 2014 the Dems won the House popular vote by almost 2% but got 33 fewer seats.Sean_F said:
A 5% lead should be sufficient for the Democrats to take the House, and that's certainly achievable in mid-term.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
Successful Congressmen frequently build up big incumbency votes, so that districts that look safe can become competitive when the incumbent retires.DavidL said:I never get the impression that party is such a big thing in the US. So much more seems to turn on the personal standing of the candidate. I don't think that taking the swing from this bye election is particularly meaningful.
That said, I would expect Trump to lose seats in the House in 2018. Presidents usually do. Loss of the House is possible but unlikely. Loss of the Senate looks vanishingly unlikely. So he is still safe from impeachment.
This was a highly competitive district in the 1990's.0 -
2018 is a midterm not general election and often sees big House swingsHarryHayfield said:Yes, there is indeed a 12% swing from GOP to Dem, and yes, that is indeed very big, but here's the thing you need to remember. Come a general election (as in November 2018) the average number of seats changing hands at an election is 2% (9), in other words you would need a 1994 style event for the Democrats to win back the House and so far I cannot see anything that even suggests that is happening.
0 -
They are mostly decided by State legislatures which are overwhelmingly Rep controlled. I don't think the courts have made any significant checks on this abuse.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
Okay, I'll give that another look but I was taking the numbers from here:HYUFD said:
This is comparing the 2016 House result in Kansas I believeGeoffM said:On topic. You can't compare Presidential results in an area with by-elections. The voters were choosing two entirely different things for (possibly) very different reasons.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328326-republican-wins-kansas-special-election-fending-off-upset0 -
Morning all
It's my view we are approaching Syria all wrong. The issue of disengaging Putin from Assad needs far more carrots and far fewer sticks. It's time we got out of the Cold War mentality and tried working with rather than against Putin.
I'm sure Putin doesn't care one iota about Assad - he cares about Russia's military presence in Syria because it makes Russia look as though it matters in the world and for Russians, just like many British people, it's all about status and looking like we count, we're important, we matter even if we don't.
"Global Britain" is predicated on the notion we can be a great mercantile nation again as we were before trading with all and sundry across the oceans - it's a romantic fantasy but it touches at the core of the British identity and therefore appeals.
Russians want to feel important as they did in the Cold War years when they were (or appeared to be) the equal of Washington on the world stage. The events of 1989-91 were a national humiliation and Putin appeals to the Russian people as the leader who can take them back to where they were, where they felt happiest and strongest.
Give Putin his bases, make him feel important and peace in Syria becomes achievable as a partnership - a joint US-Russian initiative aimed at a political resolution involving all bar IS who can be eliminated by both powers working in concert. Have Russian AND American troops on the ground in Damascus to oversee the transition to a new Government - it may not be democracy but it won't be gassing its own people.
Let Assad go into exile - is the price of peace really worth the judgement of one man ? A deal in Syria and a rapprochement with Teheran and Moscow - it's a pipedream but it starts from coming out of the Cold War mindset and considering why Russia acts as it does.0 -
In Pennsylvania on a Den +10 Rep -10 swing only 4 of the 13 Rep districts would definitely fall. 2 others would be too close to call.HYUFD said:
No, the gerrymandering is concentrated in the south and would only save the GOP if it was close to tied, a 10% swing as in Kansas would see a Democratic landslide and Pelosi easily sweeping into power as the next Speakernot_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
In 2006 the Democrats won by over 30 seats on a 52% to 44% margin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_20060 -
Is Assad willing to step down?stodge said:Morning all
It's my view we are approaching Syria all wrong. The issue of disengaging Putin from Assad needs far more carrots and far fewer sticks. It's time we got out of the Cold War mentality and tried working with rather than against Putin.
I'm sure Putin doesn't care one iota about Assad - he cares about Russia's military presence in Syria because it makes Russia look as though it matters in the world and for Russians, just like many British people, it's all about status and looking like we count, we're important, we matter even if we don't.
"Global Britain" is predicated on the notion we can be a great mercantile nation again as we were before trading with all and sundry across the oceans - it's a romantic fantasy but it touches at the core of the British identity and therefore appeals.
Russians want to feel important as they did in the Cold War years when they were (or appeared to be) the equal of Washington on the world stage. The events of 1989-91 were a national humiliation and Putin appeals to the Russian people as the leader who can take them back to where they were, where they felt happiest and strongest.
Give Putin his bases, make him feel important and peace in Syria becomes achievable as a partnership - a joint US-Russian initiative aimed at a political resolution involving all bar IS who can be eliminated by both powers working in concert. Have Russian AND American troops on the ground in Damascus to oversee the transition to a new Government - it may not be democracy but it won't be gassing its own people.
Let Assad go into exile - is the price of peace really worth the judgement of one man ? A deal in Syria and a rapprochement with Teheran and Moscow - it's a pipedream but it starts from coming out of the Cold War mindset and considering why Russia acts as it does.0 -
Labour the new Liberal Democrats?Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonnell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
Unfortunately it doesn't sound as ridiculous as it should. Five more years of Corbyn and they'd be lucky if we were comparing them to the Contuity Liberals!0 -
I think less than 5 states use an non parusan independent commission. Everywhere else the district drawing is completely partisan, either through state legislature or politically appointies on party lines.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
So now it's the Republican's fault for winning. That's a view.not_on_fire said:
They are mostly decided by State legislatures which are overwhelmingly Rep controlled. I don't think the courts have made any significant checks on this abuse.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
The courts, including the Supremes, took cases in North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia redistricting last year.0 -
Overall though, the results in the House aren't that strange. 2012 is the only year since 1998 in which the party that came second in votes came first in seats.not_on_fire said:
They are mostly decided by State legislatures which are overwhelmingly Rep controlled. I don't think the courts have made any significant checks on this abuse.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
Is there a market when the state pension age will rise to 70? (That would be an increasingly rare example of a government following the teachings of the Church of England!)Wulfrun_Phil said:
The government keeps raising the state pension age so that fewer and fewer people can get it. We're told that it will be raised again to 67 sometime after 2020. So that's 2021 at the latest then - forgive my cynicism, but every date so far initially announced has been brought forward in recent years. That would for women mean a rise in the state pension age of 7 years within an 11 year period.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
That said, the private pension I have is due to mature in 2056 when I will be 73, if I live that long, which is a fair indication of how things are going.0 -
Mr. Doethur, it is a conundrum. The age must rise but for many people their work will become far harder.
Perhaps permitting earlier retirement but for a lower pension would work?0 -
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.Sean_F said:
Is Assad willing to step down?
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
0 -
If you run the numbers i think the amount lost for retiring early is very high.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, it is a conundrum. The age must rise but for many people their work will become far harder.
Perhaps permitting earlier retirement but for a lower pension would work?0 -
So in addition to being frail, they'll be poor? Can't see that being popular.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, it is a conundrum. The age must rise but for many people their work will become far harder.
Perhaps permitting earlier retirement but for a lower pension would work?
A more plausible scenario would be a doctor signing people off for retirement depending on the job they do. Because obviously the NHS is so underworked that this would be easy to arrange and they'd be glad to fill their doctors' time up filling in forms.*
Alternatively, people may have to take other forms of work if they cannot carry on with a trade until they can retire. But as such work would be unskilled it would likely mean a big drop in income too.
However I look at it I can't see a good option.
*In case of doubt, that was sarcasm.0 -
He'll be kept in his job, and mostly out of the country, so long as he poses a credible threat to the leadership. As and when his credibility/competence is shot, he will be gone.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Observer, must agree.
I imagine Boris will remain in place until after the election, and then (if the Conservatives win) will be tossed overboard.0 -
Assad is winning isn't he?stodge said:
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.Sean_F said:
Is Assad willing to step down?
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?0 -
That's my understanding too, albeit mainly from watching the late night shows. A handful of states have what we might recognise as an electoral commission of bureaucrats, but the vast majority have the diacritics lines drawn by the incumbent politicians for their own ends.Alistair said:
I think less than 5 states use an non parusan independent commission. Everywhere else the district drawing is completely partisan, either through state legislature or politically appointies on party lines.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
0 -
One of the reasons Syria is struggling is allegedly (I use that word as I may no expert on this and it is almost certainly more complicated than I am aware of) the lack of water. How would that be resolved? Desal (which is the Israeli solution) is extremely expensive and technically challenging. Conventional reserves are inadequate and many of them are under Israeli control, who are about as likely to give up the Golan Heights as Trump is to be impeached. Yet those are the options as far as I can judge.stodge said:
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.Sean_F said:
Is Assad willing to step down?
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
If we don't get the water supply right it would seem to me the rest is so much rearranging of deckchairs on an Olympic class liner that's just hit a large ice cube. Any thoughts on how it could be done.0 -
Does the C o E advocate pensions at seventy? If you are thinking of the three score years and ten bit, I think that says you are likely to die at 70 and if you don't you will wish you had -ydoethur said:
Is there a market when the state pension age will rise to 70? (That would be an increasingly rare example of a government following the teachings of the Church of England!)Wulfrun_Phil said:
The government keeps raising the state pension age so that fewer and fewer people can get it. We're told that it will be raised again to 67 sometime after 2020. So that's 2021 at the latest then - forgive my cynicism, but every date so far initially announced has been brought forward in recent years. That would for women mean a rise in the state pension age of 7 years within an 11 year period.Big_G_NorthWales said:Boris getting a lot of flack this morning and while many seem to agree that sanctions need to be discussed as an option, he clearly hadn't done the groundwork before the meeting and by making his thoughts known prior to an agreement he laid himself open to fail. Boris is Boris but I have no doubt that he is not suitable to be PM.
Listening to John McDonell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
That said, the private pension I have is due to mature in 2056 when I will be 73, if I live that long, which is a fair indication of how things are going.
Pensions were introduced in 1908 for over 70s, when life expectancy at birth was well under 60. We seriously all need to die younger.0 -
I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.stodge said:
Again, let's be rational. On the assumption he has the gene for self-preservation, I would assume Assad would consider any deal which would preserve his (and his immediate entourage's) personal welfare.Sean_F said:
Is Assad willing to step down?
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
0 -
The CofE allows its priests to take pensions any time after the age of 60, but at the age of 70 they insist that you retire. Nothing to do with the book of Psalms, everything to do with Vicars formerly hanging on to parishes into their 80s - one Vicar of Weston under Penyard died in 1911 aged either 92 or 95 (sources disagree) still in office. Mind you, he was riding to hounds at the time his horse threw him and he died of a fractured skull so he was obviously still very active!Ishmael_Z said:
Does the C o E advocate pensions at seventy? If you are thinking of the three score years and ten bit, I think that says you are likely to die at 70 and if you don't you will wish you had -
Pensions were introduced in 1908 for over 70s, when life expectancy at birth was well under 60. We seriously all need to die younger.
Admittedly, doesn't always work like that. The last Vicar of Hartpury held on until he was 75 because they couldn't find a replacement.
Your last sentence sounds like a 60s teenager motto - live fast, die young. And had Osborne's changes gone through, that would have happened to a lot of people at 60!0 -
I'm not suggesting the successor to Assad shouldn't be someone acceptable to Moscow.rkrkrk said:
Assad is winning isn't he?
Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
What I am suggesting is Moscow has a huge say in post-Assad Syria predicated on the maintaining of its military presence at Latakia, Tartus and elsewhere. The problem is the drain on Moscow's military and economic resources of its involvement in Syria would end with peace so it's in Moscow's interests to return to if not a status quo ante bellum then a more stable and peaceful Syria.
Assad may be winning for now but as Afghanistan demonstrated, long term military involvement in a country isn't risk or cost free. Better to obviate that risk by reducing the threat of conflict than backing a leader who will never be acceptable or accepted.
Putin is missing a huge opportunity - the West's agenda starts and ends with the removal of Assad. Were Moscow to achieve that, they would a) be able to stand up and look tall in the world as a power able to get things done while b) remaining effective control of Syria and c) styming the West politically.0 -
21, depending slightly on how you count them.Alistair said:
I think less than 5 states use an non parusan independent commission. Everywhere else the district drawing is completely partisan, either through state legislature or politically appointies on party lines.GeoffM said:
This is a common misconception. House seat boundaries are either decided by the State legislature or independent State commissions. Certainly a State legislature may try to drawn boundaries it likes and suit its existing makeup, but the courts are becoming increasingly activist in striking down partisan areas.not_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
As everyone on this thread appears to be guessing or watching late night talk shows for their information, here's the definitive list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission0 -
So almlst a third of GOP seats at least would go Democrat, nationally more than enough for the Democrats to win. Most of the Midwest and NorthEast is not that gerrymandered and Maryland is gerrymandered towards the Democrats, unless the popular vote is practically tied gerrymandering would not save the GOP, a 10% swing would easily sweep Pelosi into powerAlistair said:
In Pennsylvania on a Den +10 Rep -10 swing only 4 of the 13 Rep districts would definitely fall. 2 others would be too close to call.HYUFD said:
No, the gerrymandering is concentrated in the south and would only save the GOP if it was close to tied, a 10% swing as in Kansas would see a Democratic landslide and Pelosi easily sweeping into power as the next Speakernot_on_fire said:
Don't underestimate just how effectively the Republicans have gerrymandered the House districts. I think the actual figure the Dems need is closer to 15%HYUFD said:The GOP won the 2016 House elections by 49% to 48% so a similar swing as Kansas would see the Democrats lead by 58% to 39% next year and easily take control
In 2006 the Democrats won by over 30 seats on a 52% to 44% margin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_20060 -
Why the heck would they go home when the mass-murdering dictator's still in charge? When their relatives and friends will still be in Assad's murder camps prisons? When they'll have no guarantee of their safety?DavidL said:I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Even more questionable is how Assad can keep the peace. He's lost a large proportion of his army (which is why he hasn't won even with Iranian, Hezbelloah and Russian help), so securing 'rebel' areas will be difficult.
It's easy to guess the way he'd do it, and it won't be good for the populations.0 -
Agreed. The only thing I would add is that Assad had a reputation as a moderate before the war. If he could convince the Americans that he was a hostage of his senior generals over the use of chemical weapons, they would probably believe it and be willing to let him shoot those generals and lead at least a transitional government.DavidL said:I fear that the time for this passed a long time ago. There was a time about 4 years ago when it looked as if the ragbag of rebels, with Western and Saudi assistance, were slowly driving Assad out and a deal that saved him and his family in exchange for an end to the bloodshed was on the cards. Then the Russians and the Iranians became much more heavily involved and firmly tilted the scales the other way. Increasing western disillusionment with the rebels did not help either. Now it would require a massive war of reconquest to overturn the government taking years of more bloodshed.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
It would be bollocks, of course, but it would be a convenient fiction that Trump would believe because he wants/needs it to be true. There could be worse ways to stop the fighting than Trump's obsession with alternative facts.0
