Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden now back as favourite for the Democratic nomination

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited November 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden now back as favourite for the Democratic nomination

The betdata.io chart tells the story of the fight for the Democratic nomination over the past few months and tracks the rise and fall of Elizabeth Warren. At one stage the Senator from Massachusetts was rated at more than a 50% chance on Betfair.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Bugger.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited November 2019
    FPT
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Bognor
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    I'm still of the opinion Warren is most likely, followed by Bernie and then Biden.

    Whoever is betting HRC is mad.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,218
    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    First born males?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,998
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,218
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Through-the-looking-glass stuff. And Jezza is actually being more miserly than Boris on this.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

    https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,998
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Would you be as happy to make a similar remark about German people?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    tlg86 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).
    I don't think so as minimum wage is tied to tax credits - so that you didn't have people qualifying by doing work at £1 an hour with the Government topping things up.

    The issue with increasing wages is the seeming lack of ability to increase productivity which means that as the minimum wage rises more and more job roles are being pushed into the minimum wage world.

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Two very different proposals.

    The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
    The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

    Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I’m equally contemptuous of all religions, well except Pastafarians, touch his noodly appendage.

    They are all Shi’ite to me.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,998
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    Is the Catholic Herald the Vatican? (or can it be considered to be the mouthpiece of it, rather than a newspaper aimed at Catholics?)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Two very different proposals.

    The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
    The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

    Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.
    I heard similar warnings in 1997. That turned out to be Project Fear.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    Yeah this.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,851
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    I am not trying to, and yes of course he meant The RomanCatholic Church, unless he was misusing the apostrophe! Some people, use historical references as excuses for their prejudice toward Roman Catholics. It is just as bad as islamophobia, and probably more deep seated
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
    The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,705
    edited November 2019
    On topic, the blunderer Biden seems to have Teflon resilience to suffering impact or damage from his frequent errors in connecting mouth and brain.

    Without any political dimension, he appears to be almost as challenged as Trump in this respect. The possibility of having USA selecting between Biden and Trump for POTUS must be a concern to us all. They both appear to be less mentally competent than Regan when he started his second term, and the way he deteriorated in the second term was obvious for all to see.

    What are the chances of an independent seeing an opportunity to be the bright spark in a dimly light contest?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2019
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Two very different proposals.

    The National Living Wage for ages 25+ is currently £8.21 and taking it to £10.50 over time is quite possible.
    The National Minimum Wage for 16-17 year olds is currently £4.35 and taking it to £10 overnight is quite insane.

    Not to forget that the Labour proposal includes banning probation periods.
    I heard similar warnings in 1997. That turned out to be Project Fear.
    In 1997 a rather clever, staggered by age Minimum Wage policy was introduced. Traditionally youth unemployment was always much higher than older unemployment, so by staggering the minimum wage it encouraged employers to offer opportunities to the young who could then gain some experience then get a pay rise rather than be stuck unemployed. This would end that overnight.

    If you seriously think that more than doubling overnight youth wages won't hit youth unemployment then does that not apply to other age brackets? If you can take £4.35 to £10 per hour for 16 year olds why not say £20 per hour for those aged over 25? That's the same proportional increase.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Endillion said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
    The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
    Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    I assume it was an attempt at humour.
    Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    Endillion said:

    On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

    Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
    Although I've no intention of giving up yet.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:
    • 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
    • 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
    • 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
    • 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    kamski said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    I assume it was an attempt at humour.
    Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.
    Don’t forget their role as the world’s largest paedophile exchange network.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 4,155
    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

    Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
    Although I've no intention of giving up yet.
    Buttigieg's chances of winning are, like, 1%. He does not have the non-white support needed in a party as diverse as the Democratic party to win the nomination.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    TrèsDifficile said:

    I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

    • 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
    • 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
    • 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
    • 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
    That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    image

    Youth unemployment has trended since 1997 at twice general unemployment, despite the lower minimum wage. But UK youth unemployment is one of the lowest in the EU.

    How can anyone sane think that offering an overnight 21.8% increase in minimum wage for over 25s and a 130% increase in minimum wage for under 18s won't lead to a major increase in youth unemployment?

    Be serious!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Hmm. Maybe my hedge on Biden on Ladbrokes Exchange (which isn't taking new bets but old ones are still up) will get matched after all. Think it was about 4.1.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    On topic, we’ll done to those who laid Warren when she was odds-on. Not really been following this, but know that it’s like a Test Match with lots of ebbs and flows, and the value is usually in laying the favourite.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

    That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

    I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,250
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kamski said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    I assume it was an attempt at humour.
    Still, it's a bit weird to go for the Catholic Church's historical anti-semitism (which has been apologised for), when they are currently proudly and officially homophobic and misogynistic. Also not sure if the Catholic Herald can be blamed for the policies of the Catholic Church.
    Don’t forget their role as the world’s largest paedophile exchange network.
    They probably come second to our public schools.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    edited November 2019
    The market has completely overvalued perceived momentum, debate wins, debate screwups and how good particular candidates are.

    It has undervalued being well established, actually running for the office and raw polling numbers.

    I've watched about 15 minutes of the entire debates, and providing one of the septugenarians hasn't shat themselves on stage generally bet against the shiny new (Or old in the case of Bloomberg and Clinton) hopes steaming in on the betting markets.

    Sanders' heart attack I thought might shift things but it doesn't seem to have affected him too much in the polling.

    There'll be plenty of voters who won't be paying too much attention and they'll go out and vote for Jo Biden because he's perceived as the moderate choice.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,368
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Endillion said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
    The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
    Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.
    To be fair, and to argue against myself, it was Cromwell who formally let the Jews back, although since Shakespeare had Jewish characters I assume there were Jews in London around 1600.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0zaebtU-CA
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

    That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

    I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.
    My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    Or the damage done to the world's poor by prohibiting contraception. Or the relentless child rape.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    eek said:

    TrèsDifficile said:

    I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

    • 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
    • 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
    • 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
    • 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
    That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.
    I suspect that there are a significant number of folk in the £100k - £123k in the London/SE commuter belt area who would be rethinking lending their vote to the LibDems if that became known.

    I mean, taxing a bunch of people who are "comfortable but not rich" at between 2/3rds and 3/4 of their income in that band is just spiteful. The only amusing aspect is that it would catch the Corbyn Cabinet.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,218
    Morris_Dancer said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0zaebtU-CA

    Great album. Crap name. Crap cover.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    tlg86 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    Would it not make sense to link the minimum wage to unemployment? As long as the latter doesn't start to increase, the minimum wage should go up (by x% at defined intervals, etc.).
    There’s a direct link between minimum wage, productivity, unemployment and immigation levels.

    Those in favour of a high minimum wage and unlimited unskilled immigration are going to create a three tier society:

    1. The unemployed and unemployable
    2. The minimum wage workers
    3. The elites.

    With the current skilled working and middle classes mostly relegated to 2 rather than promoted to 3.

    Guess how that works out in the long term?
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    Also from Funding Real Change, does anyone know what CDEL and RDEL mean?

    Apparently the cost to "Abolish tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (RDEL) for full-time and part-time students" is £13.6bn, but £6.4bn is clawed back by "Savings on existing tuition fee system in CDEL"

    RDEL gets 13 mentions, and CDEL 3, but neither are defined in the document.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Pulpstar said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

    That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

    I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.
    My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.
    I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


    Who will be my Marco Rubio?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Philip_Thompson said:

    image

    Youth unemployment has trended since 1997 at twice general unemployment, despite the lower minimum wage. But UK youth unemployment is one of the lowest in the EU.

    How can anyone sane think that offering an overnight 21.8% increase in minimum wage for over 25s and a 130% increase in minimum wage for under 18s won't lead to a major increase in youth unemployment?

    Be serious!

    Unemployment under Labour is always higher on leaving office than they inherited. This would ensure they were off to a flying start in keeping that record alive.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Why's Farage launching his manifesto contract in a Tory seat that he presumably has no candidate in?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    I thought he said it didn't put him in the top 5%, which it still would but without him seeming quite so mad..

    JC4PMers on twitter are convinced he's a tory plant. Rubbish plant if so
  • beentheredonethatbeentheredonethat Posts: 838
    eek said:

    I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

    https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

    I see two orange ones.
    Is orange the colour of corporatism?


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

    That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

    I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.
    My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.
    I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


    Who will be my Marco Rubio?
    How is your book at the moment ?

    Don't need exact numbers just like

    Biden - 4
    Warren - 5
    Sanders -1
    Buttigieg -7
    Clinton + 30
    Bloomberg + 20
    Harris -15
    Field -5

    I mean that would be a really poor book but we might be able to come up with a fix.

  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
    he said he wasn't even in the top 50%. watch the clip
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Why's Farage launching his manifesto contract in a Tory seat that he presumably has no candidate in?

    And where is his "taking it to Labour" strategy? We are over half way through the campaign - and I don't recall seeing evidence of it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    TrèsDifficile said:

    Also from Funding Real Change, does anyone know what CDEL and RDEL mean?

    Apparently the cost to "Abolish tuition fees and restore maintenance grants (RDEL) for full-time and part-time students" is £13.6bn, but £6.4bn is clawed back by "Savings on existing tuition fee system in CDEL"

    RDEL gets 13 mentions, and CDEL 3, but neither are defined in the document.

    Rdel is resource, cdel is capital. Del is departmental expenditure limit, to be contrasted with ame (more volatile spending).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending/how-to-understand-public-sector-spending#departmental-expenditure-limits-del
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Biden is good value here at 19%. He is 10% ahead in the national polls still and will top the poll in South Carolina, which is probably a good indicator for the deep south.
    I also think Warren is a buy at this price.

    Anyway it'll be one of the "big 4", Warren, Sanders, Biden or Buttigieg - the odds for Clinton and Bloomberg have been/are preposterous.

    That prediction still seems a bit premature to me. The media like a fresh face and there's still time for one to receive favourable media attention. Amy Klobuchar looks the most likely of these.

    I'd much rather be buying Elizabeth Warren than Joe Biden at these prices. Right now, however, I've got a large position on Pete Buttigieg which I'm very happy about. He's got the money, he's got the machine and he's got the momentum. I'm expecting his price to shorten quite a bit yet.
    My last move was to buy both Warren and Biden.
    I think I might make a bigger mess of this market than I did with the GOP nominee market in 2016 prior to New Hampshire.


    Who will be my Marco Rubio?
    How is your book at the moment ?

    Don't need exact numbers just like

    Biden - 4
    Warren - 5
    Sanders -1
    Buttigieg -7
    Clinton + 30
    Bloomberg + 20
    Harris -15
    Field -5

    I mean that would be a really poor book but we might be able to come up with a fix.

    Am on my mobile so don’t have the precise figures but only real losers are Biden and Sanders but they are pretty hefty.

    Really green on the others.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    beentheredonethat said:

    eek said:

    I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

    https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

    I see two orange ones.
    Is orange the colour of corporatism?


    I see two buses not made by Boris, because there are no happy smiling people in the windows.....
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,905
    Labour down 28% in Skem.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
    Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    MarqueeMark said:

    beentheredonethat said:

    eek said:

    I know it's a day old but this did make me laugh

    https://twitter.com/hannadryad/status/1197474254050222080

    I see two orange ones.
    Is orange the colour of corporatism?


    I see two buses not made by Boris, because there are no happy smiling people in the windows.....
    They are Boris buses. The wheels are not going round and round.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Labour down 28% in Skem.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

    88.8% of the vote last time, blimey.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,802
    MarqueeMark said:

    eek said:

    TrèsDifficile said:

    I've just been trying to read Funding Real Change to find out how Labour would change income tax. There's a lot about post-behavioural yield, taxable income elasticity and mechanical yields, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of new tax rates. It does refer in a footnote to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, ‘Labour’s proposed income tax rises for high-income individuals’, May 2017 and seems to imply that the income tax rates would be as proposed in 2017. The IFS link states that when taking into account employer and employee NICs, the rates would change from their current levels to:

    • 49.0% to 53.4% for those with earnings between £80,000 and £100,000;
    • 66.6% to 73.2% for those between £100,000 and £123,000;
    • 49.0% to 57.8% for those between £123,000 and £150,000;
    • 53.4% to 57.8% for those on more than £150,000
    That band from £100,000 to £120,000 which was already insane would be completely insane.
    I suspect that there are a significant number of folk in the £100k - £123k in the London/SE commuter belt area who would be rethinking lending their vote to the LibDems if that became known.

    I mean, taxing a bunch of people who are "comfortable but not rich" at between 2/3rds and 3/4 of their income in that band is just spiteful. The only amusing aspect is that it would catch the Corbyn Cabinet.
    I don't know how to fix it but that band is completely insane.

    Someone mentioned a job paying £130k to me earlier this week. My first thought was £30k of that is off into the pension pot.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Labour down 28% in Skem.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

    But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    TrèsDifficile said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    I thought he said it didn't put him in the top 5%, which it still would but without him seeming quite so mad..

    JC4PMers on twitter are convinced he's a tory plant. Rubbish plant if so
    He’s a JC plant, they want Tories to be talking about £80k being a reasonable salary. Top 5% is roughly correct, as much as a lot of people in London (or close by and commuting) think everyone gets paid that much.
  • humbuggerhumbugger Posts: 377
    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    My book is currently:

    Warren +6.2
    Biden +3.4
    Buttgieg +2.7
    Sanders +3.3
    Harris +2.9
    Klobuchar +4.2

    Hillary -7.5
    Yang -0.2
    Michelle Obama (!) -5
    Tulsi Gabbard -1.8

    The Field mostly +0.9

    Which ain't too bad I think. Maybe I need to bump up Buttgieg somewhat?
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,905
    MarqueeMark said:

    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Labour down 28% in Skem.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

    But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.
    Skelmersdale is basically Liverpool overspill, so unsurprising. Down almost 30% doesn't bode well for Dec 12th, though.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,250
    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    They are leaving no stone unturned in their effort to lose this election.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    Labour down 28% in Skem.

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1197841875337650177

    But from 88.8%! That's North Korean polling.
    Skelmersdale is basically Liverpool overspill, so unsurprising. Down almost 30% doesn't bode well for Dec 12th, though.
    It doesn't really mean much since there's an independent who didn't stand last time.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    OldKingCole said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Endillion said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigel_Foremain said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    This has to be the darkest GE campaign I've ever witnessed in this country - disseminating the idea that one of the major political parties intends to legalize infanticide. Sadly, people will have looked to the US and concluded that this stuff works so let's emulate.

    Given the Roman Catholic’s shameful history towards the Jews I’d have thought the Catholic Herald would be on Team Corbyn.
    Well that is a first. Never seen you write a bigoted post before. I suppose some people think it is NOT ok tbe "Islamophobic" or anti-Semitic, but it IS to kick the world's 1.2Billion Roman Catholics
    I am assuming he missed out the word "church's".

    You do not want to be in the position of trying to defend the Vatican's history towards Jews.
    To be fair to the RC's, very few Christian churches do NOT have a poor record on anti-semitism. At least at some point in their history.
    The CoE hasn't done too badly, assuming we wipe the slate clean at the Reformation.
    Yeah. The Edict of Expulsion can be blamed on the Catholics.
    To be fair, and to argue against myself, it was Cromwell who formally let the Jews back, although since Shakespeare had Jewish characters I assume there were Jews in London around 1600.
    Yes, but not resident there. I think mostly traders coming in for short periods from the Continent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    edited November 2019
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
    Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967 now applicable across the UK?

    Simple question to both parties - is Labour's or the LibDem's policy to do away with the Abortion Act 1967 time limit - yes or no?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited November 2019
    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!
    Prime Minister Aaron Bell will be generous towards me.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
    The LD policy specifically mentioned retaining the current 24 week limit, the Labour manifesto didn’t. Hence the questioning of it by religious groups.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    148grss said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Endillion said:

    On topic: for the first time in this race, I think Buttigieg is now fairly valued. Warren is too. Sanders and, especially, Biden still far too short, and the less said about Yang and Clinton the better. Given how flawed all those candidates are, and how much time is left before Iowa, Harris and Klobuchar represent great value.

    Still think Warren would do a good job. As an over 70 (and quite a bit) myself, I think that to elect someone who will be pushing 80 at the time of election presents a risk for the country.
    Although I've no intention of giving up yet.
    Buttigieg's chances of winning are, like, 1%. He does not have the non-white support needed in a party as diverse as the Democratic party to win the nomination.
    I've assumed the thinking is if he can win those early contests and be the front runner the non white support will follow.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited November 2019
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
    Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

    Blimey.. He starts by saying he's not in the top 5% but then goes on to say he's not even in the top 50%

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=20

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    TrèsDifficile said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
    Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

    Blimey.. He starts by saying he's not in the top 5% but then goes on to say he's not even in the top 50%

    https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1197651546940608514?s=20

    Thanks. So George was right as he usually is.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,470
    MarqueeMark said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
    Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
    I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    Also, I think one of the main points everyone is missing - on one hand corporations are going to see their taxes go up by £23bn plus an additional £10bn in other stuff and on the other they will see the minimum wage go up to £10/h.

    There are three ways to square that circle -

    1. The company chooses lesser profit
    2. The company cuts back on investment
    3. The company cuts jobs

    Of the three which of which most likely and which is least likely? I wonder.

    4. The company says ‘screw this’ and moves their investments and capital to other markets.
    Indeed. Not to forget with the £10/h minimum wage that is to apply suddenly to everyone even spotty hormonal 16 year olds with zero experience, more than doubling the cost of hiring them overnight.
    Hmmmm, what a difference six weeks make.


    You'll never get the peerage you deserve pointing stuff like that out!
    Prime Minister Aaron Bell will be generous towards me.
    Who will be writing his wikipedia page if he wins I wonder:)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.
    Er - but only if the Tories are in power!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,562
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Did that chap really saying earning 80k didn’t put him in the top 50%?

    That’s like saying you’re working class despite being privately educated and growing up in a family of doctors.

    Er, top 5%.....
    Oh, George Osborne CH misled me.




    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-80k-believes-it-doesnt-put-him-in-the-top-50-a4293496.html

    He does say not in the top 50% once, at about 50 seconds, but getting quite angry at that point, probably just mis-spoke rather than really believing that, he doesn't repeat that claim. Could be I mis-hear 15% as 50% there, but I'm pretty sure it's 50%.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"

    with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.
    Er - but only if the Tories are in power!
    They’ll say if the Tories can do it then so can we.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    edited November 2019
    kamski said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    Labour need to urgently clarify their abortion policy if they wish anyone remotely religious (or with a soul) to vote for them.
    https://righttolife.org.uk/news/labour-pledge-to-introduce-abortion-for-any-reason-up-to-birth/
    These things are traditionally matters of conscience for MPs, and public opinion is that late abortions should be more restricted - rather than on-demand at 39 weeks.

    ummm the LibDem policy is also to decriminalise abortion (haven't checked other parties yet). Most Conservative MPs chose not to vote against decriminalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So which party should anyone "with a soul vote" for these days?
    So ther eis
    Surely, there is a difference between the decriminalising abortion in NI - and removing the time limit of 23 weeks and 6 days of pregnancy, in line with the Abortion Act 1967?
    I don't think so. The Abortion Act 1967 never applied to Northern Ireland. Labour policy would bring England and Wales into line with the situation in Northern Ireland since October this year.
    So there is now literally an abortion free-for-all in Northern Ireland, with no time limit? Any woman can turn up in Belfast and ask for a termination at eight and a half months? Just because, say, she doesn't like the sex of her baby?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    edited November 2019
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20

    LibDems picked up 2/3 of the UKIP racist and fruit-cake vote!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,063
    CarlottaVance said:

    https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1197844926991622144?s=20

    They didn't do quite as well in Chichester! 2 gains for the Tories last night, one from the reds one from the yellows. Looking ominous for dec 12
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,063
    Morning all, labours manifesto unravelling quicker than an Ozzie budget!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,275
    Age continues to be the main electoral dividing line. Labour still dominate among young voters, but their 51% share of 18-29 year olds is down from the more than 60% they took in 2017

    https://t.co/gVDhSzjZLG https://t.co/KMVuenIn6r
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    TrèsDifficile said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    Their explanation - "Taking companies into public ownership is fiscally neutral by international accounting standards when bonds are exchanged for shares (as in previous nationalisations)"

    with a footnote - "Depending on timing there may be some further capital expenditure on nationalisations but we would hope HM Treasury’s Public Ownership Unit will have completed their acquisition before then and have not included a fiscal multiplier effect from them"
    So, to put that in English, everyone’s pension funds investments are about to get completely screwed, as the government decide to either force share sales at an arbitrary price, or to simply take over shares in a private company at random?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    humbugger said:

    Good morning all.

    The Tories should really start hammering Labour on trust. Labour keep saying their tax rises will only affect the top 5% which is simply untrue. The abolition of marriage alllowance, the increase in dividend tax rates and the reduction in IHT allowances will hit lots of ordinary people with incomes way below £80,000. Labour are being downright dishonest in claiming otherwise.

    Especially as Labour haven't even bothered to include hundreds of billions for 'capital' expenditure and nationalisation in their figures. Where the hell is that coming from?
    If Labour were smart they’d say it would be funded by the benefits of the EU FTA deal that the Tories say will be signed next year.
    Er - but only if the Tories are in power!
    They’ll say if the Tories can do it then so can we.
    Labour can say what they like. Whether people believe them though....
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,063
    Omnishamblesfesto!
    Scrapping the married couples allowance is a totally insane thing to put in a manifesto. Slip it in your first budget but dont tell working class couples you are screwing them up front! It's as daft as gordons 10p rate clusterfeck
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Woolie. aye, they're trying to beat the baby-eating Tories at their own game.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025