politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you think Beto O’Rourke is going to win Texas in November t

FPT...

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

I don’t know enough to comment on your second paragraph, but if there’s criminal offences committed then the directors will be held accountable by the authorities.

It’s a very difficult industry to regulate properly for lots of reasons, with high default rates but providing a valuable service otherwise served by a completely unregulated and physically violent black market. Most importantly, those doing the regulating have no idea what life is like for people who use companies like Wonga.

Maybe there’s an opportunity for the Church or other charities to set up a credit union to enter this market, but they will likely find out quickly that it’s not a sustainable model without interest rates that most middle-classes would consider usurious.

Surely that though is as much an indictment of High Street Banks and their stupid charges as anything else? If they were properly regulated then Wonga wouldn't have had even an official reason for its existence, given it only gave loans to people with bank accounts that THEY (please note) could access over the internet.

TBQH though I feel that if anything is to be done along these lines it would be better done through emergency financial support from local charities. The bizarre thing is I used to run a charity that could literally provide hundreds of pounds to anyone in need of money at an hour's notice and hardly anyone ever applied to it.

Could small charities really supply the amount of money the pay-day lending industry is doing? It doesn't seem likely they have the billions that the likes of Wonga lend out every year.

As for banks, given they got burned over sub-prime mortgages, I am not sure they are going to be wanting to get into the sub-prime loan business with even more high risk individuals e.g. don't own their own home, so the bank doesn't have anything to recoup if they default.

Second like Beto?

He was interviewed on Stephen Colbert’s show the other night, seemed quite good but he’s really up against it in Texas as opposed to a New York talk show.

Edit: damn, third.

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Does this work in the U.K.?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5IES0UP9sc

Didn't Jesus overturn the moneylenders' tables in the temple?

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business. I don't think it is a wise move.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

There are around 30,000 Church of England parishes. The fund I managed for a very small, poor and rural parish had around £60,000 of assets. They could therefore get close to that figure - certainly enough to mitigate a large number of problems. (Please note - these funds are associated with but not part of the Church structure.)

But your fund had to make a return right? Putting it into extremely high risk loans seems extremely unwise from the perspective of somebody who is suppose to be safe guarding that money.

No - the fund was to be used 'for the benefit of the poor of the parish.' There was no obligation on the Trustees to make a return, except the moral one not to exhaust it.

But as I said, we actually had far fewer applications than we had income, never mind capital, to give away.

Sandpit said:

Does this work in the U.K.?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j5IES0UP9sc

It does.

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business. I don't think it is a wise move.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

There are around 30,000 Church of England parishes. The fund I managed for a very small, poor and rural parish had around £60,000 of assets. They could therefore get close to that figure - certainly enough to mitigate a large number of problems. (Please note - these funds are associated with but not part of the Church structure.)

But your fund had to make a return right? Putting it into extremely high risk loans seems extremely unwise from the perspective of somebody who is suppose to be safe guarding that money.

No - the fund was to be used 'for the benefit of the poor of the parish.' There was no obligation on the Trustees to make a return, except the moral one not to exhaust it.

But as I said, we actually had far fewer applications than we had income, never mind capital, to give away.

So the issue is one of marketing. Can you work to promote your fund at food banks and second-hard shops? It’s difficult to compete with either flashy TV ads or very localised word of mouth, which is how your ‘competitors’ operate.

First of three debates on the 21st:
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/14/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-agree-3-debates/

If you’re betting on this race, worth following.

Doing a quick bit of googling, seems like credit unions have been going bust. They took on a lot more people a few years ago, but that just massively increased those that were behind on repayments (despite very low interest rates) and ultimately caused a lot of them to become insolvent.

Membership of credit unions in Britain has climbed to more than one million people but the number of customers seriously behind with their loan payments has increased sharply

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/jul/29/credit-unions-membership-archbishop-welby-wonga

However, the number of active credit unions in Britain fell from 565 in 2004 to 390 in 2012.

Credit unions are frequently touted as offering an ethical alternative to banks – but are they a safe place to put your cash? UK credit unions are collapsing at a rate of one per month at present, and the liquidator of the latest to go under has told Guardian Money there will almost certainly be more casualties.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/11/credit-union-liquidation-money-save

It seems trying to loan money at 2% a month to very high risk individuals probably isn't sustainable.

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Parishes do have a lot of money - our guild church has a cool half a million in trust for the benefit of widowed seamstresses living in the City of London...

The problem is despite the Charity Commission reforms it can be difficult to unlock these funds.

The way I found around that when I also had a small (ridiculously so) fund dedicated to Education was simply to merge with another charity and allow its aims to be the dominant ones. Being a punctilious sort I contacted the Commission and got an abrupt 'Nowt to do with us, do what you like with your money.' So I did.

It might therefore be posssible with your charity to merge with another that has a more general brief. If there is any trouble, it could be done on the understanding that widowed seamstresses would have priority in any grant applications.

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Parishes do have a lot of money - our guild church has a cool half a million in trust for the benefit of widowed seamstresses living in the City of London...

The problem is despite the Charity Commission reforms it can be difficult to unlock these funds.

our parish has benefactor funds which more or less keep my church solvent. Out parish council raised some eyes by trying to make a play for them !

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Parishes do have a lot of money - our guild church has a cool half a million in trust for the benefit of widowed seamstresses living in the City of London...

The problem is despite the Charity Commission reforms it can be difficult to unlock these funds.

our parish has benefactor funds which more or less keep my church solvent. Out parish council raised some eyes by trying to make a play for them !

The Diocese of London took over "management" of 12 houses we had in Fleet Street in the 1880s. When we pointed out in the 1980s that they were 98 years behind in paying over the rents they announced that +Richard had retrospectively decided that it was a transfer of ownership and paid us the princely sum of £120 per house as that was the fair value at the time of transfer...

Charles said:

We managed to do that already - have extended it helping education of poor children whose parents work in the City of London (!!)

TBH, I do have a solution, which is to absorb them into the Master Charitable Trust. But we have a very conservative Lay Vice Chairman who was concerned about loss of control. He'd rather sit there and do nothing - despite the legal risk (I am an ex-officio trustee of these charities as a result of being a churchwarden) - than do something useful with the money

To be blunt, that is an attitude I simply can't understand. Charitable money (saving your presence as a scion of a distinguished banking house) is like manure - needs to be spread thinly to do any good, because if you keep it in one place it stinks to high heaven and crushes the life out of everything.

Incidentally, I have read your last post on the other thread, and I fear your Trentchant criticisms have left me without a riposte. So I shall rest on my laurels for the moment in the hope this thread will be Tamar.

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Parishes do have a lot of money - our guild church has a cool half a million in trust for the benefit of widowed seamstresses living in the City of London...

The problem is despite the Charity Commission reforms it can be difficult to unlock these funds.

our parish has benefactor funds which more or less keep my church solvent. Out parish council raised some eyes by trying to make a play for them !

The Diocese of London took over "management" of 12 houses we had in Fleet Street in the 1880s. When we pointed out in the 1980s that they were 98 years behind in paying over the rents they announced that +Richard had retrospectively decided that it was a transfer of ownership and paid us the princely sum of £120 per house as that was the fair value at the time of transfer...

I often wonder why parishes stay in the CoE, the central authorities are a law to themselves.

I replaced our church roof with a lottery grant - free money - and yet they fussed about like a bunch of eejits to the point where I wanted to walk away and tell them to do it themselves.

and then theres ++Welby :-)

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

We managed to do that already - have extended it helping education of poor children whose parents work in the City of London (!!)

TBH, I do have a solution, which is to absorb them into the Master Charitable Trust. But we have a very conservative Lay Vice Chairman who was concerned about loss of control. He'd rather sit there and do nothing - despite the legal risk (I am an ex-officio trustee of these charities as a result of being a churchwarden) - than do something useful with the money

To be blunt, that is an attitude I simply can't understand. Charitable money (saving your presence as a scion of a distinguished banking house) is like manure - needs to be spread thinly to do any good, because if you keep it in one place it stinks to high heaven and crushes the life out of everything.

Incidentally, I have read your last post on the other thread, and I fear your Trentchant criticisms have left me without a riposte. So I shall rest on my laurels for the moment in the hope this thread will be Tamar.

Im trying to Foyle your incessant river puns by asking the mods for a Bann, my enthusiasm for this game is simply Lagan

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

For your second paragraph, nor did Wonga.

For your first, you might be surprised. Most parishes in the Church of England have links to local funds left by benefactors in times past that most people never realise exist, and some of them have vast resources that are never properly tapped.

Wonga have gone, but there are still plenty of others. You only have to watch daytime telly for 5 mins. It is massively risky business from the get-go, so unsurprising that one has gone busto, especially as it became the absolute focus of all negative press. Nobody really talks about the others like QuickQuid etc.

As for CoE parishes having funds, £3bn worth of money? (cos that is what I believe the pay-day lenders do every year) and again do they want to get into what is an incredibly risky business.

I don't think it is a wise move, unless you are going to be extremely picky over who you lend money to, and to be honest those people probably aren't having issues anyway, as they more than likely pay back the money next week with the extra £10-20 they have been charged and move on.

I don't know what the answer is. People say credit unions, perhaps. If there was a dead easy low risk low cost answer that could make money (or very least break even), the likes of Wonga would never exist in the first place.

Parishes do have a lot of money - our guild church has a cool half a million in trust for the benefit of widowed seamstresses living in the City of London...

The problem is despite the Charity Commission reforms it can be difficult to unlock these funds.

our parish has benefactor funds which more or less keep my church solvent. Out parish council raised some eyes by trying to make a play for them !

The Diocese of London took over "management" of 12 houses we had in Fleet Street in the 1880s. When we pointed out in the 1980s that they were 98 years behind in paying over the rents they announced that +Richard had retrospectively decided that it was a transfer of ownership and paid us the princely sum of £120 per house as that was the fair value at the time of transfer...

I often wonder why parishes stay in the CoE, the central authorities are a law to themselves.

I replaced our church roof with a lottery grant - free money - and yet they fussed about like a bunch of eejits to the point where I wanted to walk away and tell them to do it themselves.

and then theres ++Welby :-)

Our problem is that as a Guild Church +Richard appointed our Vicar, was our Visitor and was our Diocesan Bishop... we didn't have many other options...

Charles said:

Our problem is that as a Guild Church +Richard appointed our Vicar, was our Visitor and was our Diocesan Bishop... we didn't have many other options...

That's just silly. You should at the very least have been able to have a different Visitor. Does that arrangement still stand? If so, it is one thing I'd be seeking to change.

ydoethur said:

Alanbrooke said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

We managed to do that already - have extended it helping education of poor children whose parents work in the City of London (!!)

TBH, I do have a solution, which is to absorb them into the Master Charitable Trust. But we have a very conservative Lay Vice Chairman who was concerned about loss of control. He'd rather sit there and do nothing - despite the legal risk (I am an ex-officio trustee of these charities as a result of being a churchwarden) - than do something useful with the money

To be blunt, that is an attitude I simply can't understand. Charitable money (saving your presence as a scion of a distinguished banking house) is like manure - needs to be spread thinly to do any good, because if you keep it in one place it stinks to high heaven and crushes the life out of everything.

Incidentally, I have read your last post on the other thread, and I fear your Trentchant criticisms have left me without a riposte. So I shall rest on my laurels for the moment in the hope this thread will be Tamar.

Im trying to Foyle your incessant river puns by asking the mods for a Bann, my enthusiasm for this game is simply Lagan

I fear I'm running out of rivers. This may become an Exe past time that Darted through one Saturday afternoon.

Has that Kielder conversation or at least got us to call Tyne?

Such punning is a Dee lightful sight for Soar Eyes.

SandyRentool said:

On topic, so have the Dems found a real-life Matt Santos?

Texas going blue would be game over for the White House.

Is O Rourke Hispanic - isn't that an Irish name? Surely Cruz has more similarities to Santos - albeit perhaps not in the looks department! Beto's actual first name is Robert and he is fourth generation Irish American.

As with a lot of these state wide races they are a lot about personalities than parties. In Florida the Democrat is ahead in the Governors race but the Republican is ahead on polling averages in the Senate race for example.

A popular Democrat may well retain Montana and West Virginia for the Senate this year - but they will go Republican solidly for the Presidency. A Republican won a Senate Race in Massachusetts just a few years ago.

The long term trend is for Texas to go Democrat but this election may tell you as much about Cruz and O'Rourke as anything more fundamental. And on current polling averages Cruz remains ahead.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Alanbrooke said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

We managed to do that already - have extended it helping education of poor children whose parents work in the City of London (!!)

TBH, I do have a solution, which is to absorb them into the Master Charitable Trust. But we have a very conservative Lay Vice Chairman who was concerned about loss of control. He'd rather sit there and do nothing - despite the legal risk (I am an ex-officio trustee of these charities as a result of being a churchwarden) - than do something useful with the money

To be blunt, that is an attitude I simply can't understand. Charitable money (saving your presence as a scion of a distinguished banking house) is like manure - needs to be spread thinly to do any good, because if you keep it in one place it stinks to high heaven and crushes the life out of everything.

Incidentally, I have read your last post on the other thread, and I fear your Trentchant criticisms have left me without a riposte. So I shall rest on my laurels for the moment in the hope this thread will be Tamar.

Im trying to Foyle your incessant river puns by asking the mods for a Bann, my enthusiasm for this game is simply Lagan

I fear I'm running out of rivers. This may become an Exe past time that Darted through one Saturday afternoon.

Has that Kielder conversation or at least got us to call Tyne?

Such punning is a Dee lightful sight for Soar Eyes.

I didn't think the Dee pun would Cam again after Charles' comments on the last thread! But I don't wish to Parrott river names all afternoon, in case I Test everyone's patience. I will stop there.

ydoethur said:

Those commenting about Wonga's usefulness may find this article interesting - from somebody who does know (as do I) what life is like at the sharp end financially.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/wonga-borrowing-payday-lender

I think he also makes a very good wider point about debt.

A new problem/solution (depending on your point of view and how it works out) is coming soon. This allows you to borrow against your forthcoming next pay cheque from your own actual employer via an app called iirc paystream or something like that. The company works with your own employer's HR and pay scheme to automatically take the borrowed money out of your next salary cheque.

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Our problem is that as a Guild Church +Richard appointed our Vicar, was our Visitor and was our Diocesan Bishop... we didn't have many other options...

That's just silly. You should at the very least have been able to have a different Visitor. Does that arrangement still stand? If so, it is one thing I'd be seeking to change.

You can only change the Visitor with the permission of your Diocesan Bishop.

Fortunately we have some friends with the access to prevent any real abuses if necessary...

Can't you appeal over +Sarah's head to the Metropolitan? It seems an inquitous arrangement. Well, not seems, clearly is on what you've said about Chartres.

FAO TSE

Finally home with barely any train/tube service for a Sat in Wembley.

Liverpool are a team on the up - as everyone says its 1/2 between them and City.

Spurs look stale, tired & as for Dire & Rose having their own 'who can pass to the opponent most' competiton...well.

75 quid well spent.

ydoethur said:

Those commenting about Wonga's usefulness may find this article interesting - from somebody who does know (as do I) what life is like at the sharp end financially.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/wonga-borrowing-payday-lender

I think he also makes a very good wider point about debt.

The central point of credit being too easy and also there is zero shame of being debt these days...what isn't clear is Wonga being used to facilitate this in the first place or as a way of trying to push the problem further down the road after overspending / poor planning for future / unexpected expense or change in income.

Also can the genie can be put back in the bottle, now people have got used to easy credit, low interest rates and the rise of social media showing people all these luxury lifestyles.

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

Those commenting about Wonga's usefulness may find this article interesting - from somebody who does know (as do I) what life is like at the sharp end financially.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/wonga-borrowing-payday-lender

I think he also makes a very good wider point about debt.

The central point of credit being too easy and also there is zero shame of being debt these days...what isn't clear is Wonga being used to facilitate this in the first place or as a way of trying to push the problem further down the road after overspending...also if the genie can be put back in the bottle, now people have got used to easy credit, low interest rates and the rise of social media showing people all these luxury lifestyles.

A 21st century Dallas complex?

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

Those commenting about Wonga's usefulness may find this article interesting - from somebody who does know (as do I) what life is like at the sharp end financially.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/wonga-borrowing-payday-lender

I think he also makes a very good wider point about debt.

A new problem/solution (depending on your point of view and how it works out) is coming soon. This allows you to borrow against your forthcoming next pay cheque from your own actual employer via an app called iirc paystream or something like that. The company works with your own employer's HR and pay scheme to automatically take the borrowed money out of your next salary cheque.

That might work for those in regular employment, but perhaps not so much in the gig economy.

The real problem is that people are skint. Partly it is due to issues like UC, and in part due to excessive consumerism. Too many are living on the never-never.

Foxy said:

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

Those commenting about Wonga's usefulness may find this article interesting - from somebody who does know (as do I) what life is like at the sharp end financially.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/wonga-borrowing-payday-lender

I think he also makes a very good wider point about debt.

A new problem/solution (depending on your point of view and how it works out) is coming soon. This allows you to borrow against your forthcoming next pay cheque from your own actual employer via an app called iirc paystream or something like that. The company works with your own employer's HR and pay scheme to automatically take the borrowed money out of your next salary cheque.

That might work for those in regular employment, but perhaps not so much in the gig economy.

The real problem is that people are skint. Partly it is due to issues like UC, and in part due to excessive consumerism. Too many are living on the never-never.

New cars is a good example of excessive consumerism. It is easier than ever to get a new car through a whole variety of never never schemes, and obviously they are extremely expensive items to be over spending on.

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1041006365521653765?s=21

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1040942195073798144

For a moment I didn't read that properly and I wondered who this Russian bloke Omov was, and why they care about Welsh Labour.

I really can't see Drakeford being a success. He's got Phil Hammond's charisma, Johnson's acumen, Corbyn's leadership skills and Clinton's inability to connect to people.

The snag is with no obvious alternative government and two opponents who spent more time fighting each other than Labour Wales will still be stuck with them unless their vote share dips below about 25%.

The electoral system for Wales is ludicrous. The ratio of constituency to list members should be amended to much nearer 1:1, rather than the current 2:1, which is too high to allow AMS to work properly and guarantees Labour something close to an absolute majority most of the time, providing that they keep their South Wales seats.

For reference, Holyrood uses a ratio of 1.3:1 If Wales used that same ratio, then there'd be 31 top-up MPs rather than 20, few of which would go to Labour.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

FAO TSE

Finally home with barely any train/tube service for a Sat in Wembley.

Liverpool are a team on the up - as everyone says its 1/2 between them and City.

Spurs look stale, tired & as for Dire & Rose having their own 'who can pass to the opponent most' competiton...well.

75 quid well spent.

Annoying that.

Jan Vertoghen is worse than Mark Reckless to me for his assault on Bobby Firmino.

We’ve both got easy matches on Tuesday.

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1040942195073798144

For a moment I didn't read that properly and I wondered who this Russian bloke Omov was, and why they care about Welsh Labour.

I really can't see Drakeford being a success. He's got Phil Hammond's charisma, Johnson's acumen, Corbyn's leadership skills and Clinton's inability to connect to people.

The snag is with no obvious alternative government and two opponents who spent more time fighting each other than Labour Wales will still be stuck with them unless their vote share dips below about 25%.

The electoral system for Wales is ludicrous a blatant stitch up.

Fixed it for you...

Well, indeed. It is odd though that it's not been amended, given the other reforms that have gone through and which a rebalancing could have been tagged on to (particularly after 2010). I appreciate that few are keen on extra politicians and the alternative - redrawing the boundaries - would take longer to implement than adding extra List AMs, but neither is beyond the wit of man.

FrancisUrquhart said:

About two in five voters would be highly likely to vote for a new party in the political centre ground at a future election, a new poll for the Observer has revealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/15/almost-half-of-voters-say-they-would-vote-for-new-party-in-election

We already have a centrist political party that runs candidates in every seat. Why wouldn't they vote Lib Dem?

How would this mythical centre party materialise in practice and win under FPTP? A similar poll a few weeks ago said something like 27 per cent of voters would back a hard right anti immigration party too in theory but UKIP are on around 4 per cent?

oxfordsimon said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Clegg leads pro-remain grandees on diplomatic mission to stop Brexit

Prominent remain supporters including Tony Blair and John Major have been working with Nick Clegg and Peter Mandelson on a diplomatic mission to try to persuade European leaders to stop Brexit.

Clegg, the former deputy prime minister, began the mission independently but has taken on the role of informal shop steward to the grandees.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/14/clegg-leads-pro-remain-grandees-on-diplomatic-mission-to-stop-brexit

To be on a diplomatic mission, you have to first be a diplomat.

Not former politicians with no standing to speak on behalf of our nation.

This is an arrogant step from this bunch who failed to win a referendum and are now seeking to prevent it from being implemented.

How would 'European leaders' stop Brexit - surely it's up to Brits and our parliament. Conspiring with foreign leaders against your government and Parliament used to result in quite severe punishments!

Mr. Glenn, I believe the concise consensus was that Grayling is, was, and most likely shall remain a berk.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, I believe the concise consensus was that Grayling is, was, and most likely shall remain a berk.

Mr Dancer, objection.

That remark is unfair to berks.

It is even unfair to Berkeley Hunts.

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/TheRedRoar/status/1040942195073798144

For a moment I didn't read that properly and I wondered who this Russian bloke Omov was, and why they care about Welsh Labour.

I really can't see Drakeford being a success. He's got Phil Hammond's charisma, Johnson's acumen, Corbyn's leadership skills and Clinton's inability to connect to people.

The snag is with no obvious alternative government and two opponents who spent more time fighting each other than Labour Wales will still be stuck with them unless their vote share dips below about 25%.

The electoral system for Wales is ludicrous a blatant stitch up.

Fixed it for you...

Well, indeed. It is odd though that it's not been amended, given the other reforms that have gone through and which a rebalancing could have been tagged on to (particularly after 2010). I appreciate that few are keen on extra politicians and the alternative - redrawing the boundaries - would take longer to implement than adding extra List AMs, but neither is beyond the wit of man.

I think the reason why there has been no increase, strange though it sounds, is that there are only 63 seats in Y Senedd. So it would need to be a cut in constituencies as well.

If I felt malicious and/or paranoid I would wonder whether Labour had designed it that way...

I did think about making comment about the physical size of the Chamber but they're not crammed in and if there had to be a little re-engineering to fit another dozen or so, I'm sure it could be done.

brendan16 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

About two in five voters would be highly likely to vote for a new party in the political centre ground at a future election, a new poll for the Observer has revealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/15/almost-half-of-voters-say-they-would-vote-for-new-party-in-election

We already have a centrist political party that runs candidates in every seat. Why wouldn't they vote Lib Dem?

How would this mythical centre party materialise in practice and win under FPTP? A similar poll a few weeks ago said something like 27 per cent of voters would back a hard right anti immigration party too in theory but UKIP are on around 4 per cent?

I'd like a not-Labour and not-Conservative party to vote for but won't be voting for the Lib Dems because I disagree with their flagship EU policy.

Good evening, everybody.

A reminder that not only too many tweets make you a twat, they can ruin you financially.

https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1041007160765894658
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1041007558457217024
https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/status/1041009271226421248

No idea what Abi Wilkinson is on about, as my memory is that Jezza's oh-so-wonderful-socialist manifesto at last GE did nothing about the benefits freeze and he refused to say he would change it when on the campaign trail.

williamglenn said:

I haven't seen this discussed on here.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/102489d2-b85e-11e8-9605-b6ff09b482a1

Every adult should be given a cash handout to mark Britain’s exit from the EU, Chris Grayling suggested at a special cabinet meeting.

Changes name by deed poll to 'NHS'.

If O'Rourke wins Texas in November he would certainly be a contender for 2020 or at least the VP slot but despite the hype Cruz still leads O'Rourke in both polls this month by 3% and 4% respectively, so it looks like he will get close but not close enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas,_2018

Indeed the Democrats could fail to win in Texas and still take the Senate if they win Nevada, Arizona and Tennessee where they are currently closer to the GOP than in Texas or even ahead and lose only 1 of the currently Democratic held seats

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

Our problem is that as a Guild Church +Richard appointed our Vicar, was our Visitor and was our Diocesan Bishop... we didn't have many other options...

That's just silly. You should at the very least have been able to have a different Visitor. Does that arrangement still stand? If so, it is one thing I'd be seeking to change.

You can only change the Visitor with the permission of your Diocesan Bishop.

Fortunately we have some friends with the access to prevent any real abuses if necessary...

Can't you appeal over +Sarah's head to the Metropolitan? It seems an inquitous arrangement. Well, not seems, clearly is on what you've said about Chartres.

They know if they get to arsey we just call up Lambeth

RobD said:

Pulpstar said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

About two in five voters would be highly likely to vote for a new party in the political centre ground at a future election, a new poll for the Observer has revealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/15/almost-half-of-voters-say-they-would-vote-for-new-party-in-election

Arf. No they wouldn't.

The new party would immediately be at 40%? Yeah, I don't believe it either.

To be fair that's pretty much what happened in the early weeks of the SDP (was it even 50%+?). Of course it wouldn't survive much past the formulation of any policies. The difference with a Presidential system of course is that an individual can basically come up with his own personal manifesto and doesn't necessarily need a party behind them.

justin124 said:

Texas has only been consistently Republican at Presidential Elections since 1980. Prior to that it rather swung about- and was ,of course, represented by LBJ and Loyd Bentsen for the Democrats. Ann Richards won the Governorship as recently as the 1990s. The most recent demographic trends there tend to favour the Democrats.

Well, if we're honest it was religiously Democrat until the 1950s as part of the Solid South (with the aberration of 1928). Heck, it even voted Truman in 1948 when almost all the rest of the old Confederacy voted for Thurmond. From 1952 to 1968 it was a swing state. Since then, it's been solidly republican with the sole exception of 76. I suppose you could say it was a bellweather from 1928 to 1992 but it's hard to escape the feeling much of that was coinicidence.

I think a lot of the South however will gradually swing blue as African American and Hispanic voters make themselves felt. Plus Texas with its high number of well-paid international and government jobs is less Trump-friendly than the rustbelt.

Perhaps Virginia in 2008 was a straw in the wind we should have paid more attention to.

justin124 said:

Texas has only been consistently Republican at Presidential Elections since 1980. Prior to that it rather swung about- and was ,of course, represented by LBJ and Loyd Bentsen for the Democrats. Ann Richards won the Governorship as recently as the 1990s. The most recent demographic trends there tend to favour the Democrats.

You could make an argument Florida is moving more Republican and could ultimately replace Texas again as the safest GOP big state. Indeed Nixon-Lodge won Florida in 1960 despite JFK-Johnson winning Texas and in 2016 Trump won Florida with a swing to the Republicans since 2012 while in Texas there was a swing to the Democrats despite the fact Hillary still lost the state

david_herdson said:

Re the PS, there's a much simpler route to an 'Other' win, which is that of Macron or the SDP as polling in late 1981 - for example:

SDP/Lib 42
Lab 29
Con 26.5

(Gallup 16/11/81)

or

SDP/Lib 44
Lab 27
Con 27

(Mori 1/12/81)

And there are plenty of others like those - I've not picked the most extreme.

If there was a major split within Labour, and the Tories ousted May and replaced her with either someone else tin-eared and dull or someone more interested in Brexit than the NHS, then in these retail politics-driven times, I could well see a new centre party (into which the Lib Dems would need to merge or act as junior ally), comfortably leading the polls.

The 42% for a hypothectical centre party with Opinium matches that 1981 poll rating for the SDP

I think any new centre party (or a rebranded/merged Lib Dems) must launch after Brexit to have any hope of being succesful. Brexit is simply too divisive.

Taking that idea of Grayling's, what about a commemorative issue of stamps or gold coins with Junker's head on one side and the map of Europe excluding the United Kingdom on the reverse?

geoffw said:

Taking that idea of Grayling's, what about a commemorative issue of stamps or gold coins with Junker's head on one side and the map of Europe excluding the United Kingdom on the reverse?

Problem with putting Juncker's head on a stamp is people will spit on the wrong side.

With the exception of Selmayr who of course owes his career to licking Juncker's back side...