politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the LAB leadership nomination stage coming to an end punt
Options
Comments
-
Ridiculous wallyness IMOkinabalu said:@BluestBlue
Nothing wrong with a song. If "Boris" wants to close every cabinet meeting with a hymn or a sea shanty, fine.
But no coercive chanting. That is to humiliate and infantalize his colleagues. It's gratuitous. It's cruel. And most importantly it will not lead to good governance.1 -
It does seem to be the Wakefield generation that have reduced herd immunity.Cyclefree said:TimT said:No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
Cyclefree said:Christ!
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
It is likely to be fairly mild if vaccinated, hopefully as there are at least some antibodies.0 -
Bloomberg needs to beat Sanders in California and Texas on Super Tuesday to really be favourite for the Democratic nominationMikeSmithson said:0 -
I have no problem with that, even Boris has no problem with thatstodge said:
Would you support reform of Council Tax bands to create more bands for higher valued properties?HYUFD said:
You cannot really have austerity for non state funded private schools and private hospitals, tac rises for the rich maybe0 -
The current WHO and CDC guidance is that the 2-shot childhood vaccine should suffice. Others doubt that this is the case - either because immunity fades with time (for which there is some evidence) or that there has been some genetic drift in the extant virus, so we might need new booster shots to ensure our immunity is extended to the current version of the virus.Cyclefree said:TimT said:No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
Cyclefree said:Christ!
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
I think there is a fair amount of discussion about booster shots for a number of different viruses, and differing views (even excluding the anti-vaxxers).
This refers to a scientific study on the effectiveness of the 2-shot vaccine during an actual outbreak:
https://www.consumerreports.org/mumps/should-you-get-a-mumps-booster/0 -
I bloody well vaccinated all my children. If Wakefield is responsible for this, he'd better not be found anywhere near me. He will end up a stain on a carpet somewhere.Foxy said:
It does seem to be the Wakefield generation that have reduced herd immunity.Cyclefree said:TimT said:No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
Cyclefree said:Christ!
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
It is likely to be fairly mild if vaccinated, hopefully as there are at least some antibodies.0 -
I have advocated this for yearsHYUFD said:
I have no problem with that, even Boris has no problem with thatstodge said:
Would you support reform of Council Tax bands to create more bands for higher valued properties?HYUFD said:
You cannot really have austerity for non state funded private schools and private hospitals, tac rises for the rich maybe1 -
-
Why, what did they do?Foxy said:0 -
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.0 -
Thank you. I will talk to my GP.TimT said:
The current WHO and CDC guidance is that the 2-shot childhood vaccine should suffice. Others doubt that this is the case - either because immunity fades with time (for which there is some evidence) or that there has been some genetic drift in the extant virus, so we might need new booster shots to ensure our immunity is extended to the current version of the virus.Cyclefree said:TimT said:No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
Cyclefree said:Christ!
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
I think there is a fair amount of discussion about booster shots for a number of different viruses, and differing views (even excluding the anti-vaxxers).
This refers to a scientific study on the effectiveness of the 2-shot vaccine during an actual outbreak:
https://www.consumerreports.org/mumps/should-you-get-a-mumps-booster/0 -
Financial fair play rules not so much broken as disregarded.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Why, what did they do?Foxy said:1 -
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know0 -
66.7% so I failed.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1228269285467918336
I got 14. A couple of lucky guesses. At least one question is utter bollx.0 -
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.1 -
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.isam said:
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.0 -
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.0 -
They might nominate a liberal son of a billionaire as they did with JFK but a self made billionaire capitalist no, agreedspeedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.0 -
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=200 -
Thanks, I was genuinely curious, not mocking in any wayMexicanpete said:
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.isam said:
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
It may well be better info than psephological pseudo science.1 -
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.0 -
It is worse than a Labour Leadership event, because it's only for the nomination.Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
The position of Presidential Nominee carries no nominal political power.
So no Democratic Party member is forced to follow the nominee under threat of expulsion.
They will all scatter to the four corners of the horizon for a few months rather than follow Bloomberg.
In contrast being Labour Leader carries actual political power, second to none inside Labour.1 -
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.Mexicanpete said:
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning1 -
Over on reddit /r/soccer and the premier league subreddits are at MAXIMUM SCHADENFREUDE. PSG next?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Evening all.
Re header:
Starmer just isn't going to be a very good leader. He's probably the best choice Labour have, but its really unclear whether he'll facilitate a better choice for his successor. And that's what Labour needs. Not a great leader now, but someone that will give them a great leader some way down the track.
If I switch hats and imagine myself to be a Labour supporter (admittedly I may not be so good at this in that I find myself barking at the moon when I do so) then Nandy is the choice I'd make. From my switched perspective I think she's very good, and even from my unswitched one I think she's quite sensible.
Starmer/Nandy isn't the fight that matters though. The deputy leader election is more important in many ways - Rayner, although almost sure to get the job, is a terrible choice. As a Tory I'm frankly delighted, but given there's a small risk that these people may get to power I worry enormously.
However - no Corbyn, no McDonnell - the nations fortunes are in the sunny uplands.0 -
0
-
I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg0 -
The Blades should cut through the Meringues easily enoughglw said:
Over on reddit /r/soccer and the premier league subreddits are at MAXIMUM SCHADENFREUDE. PSG next?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Anecdote alert: My wife, who voted for Trump, is now anyone but Trump, even Bernie, but she'd really, really, really prefer it not be him. If Bloomberg is the only one who could beat Sanders, then he's her man. She'd be happy with Klobuchar or Mayor Pete.isam said:
Thanks, I was genuinely curious, not mocking in any wayMexicanpete said:
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.isam said:
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
It may well be better info than psephological pseudo science.1 -
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?0
-
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?HYUFD said:
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.Mexicanpete said:
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning0 -
That post New Hampshire poll is really weird.
How can Biden now be second with over 25% of the vote when in reality he came fifth with 10% of the vote?
Something doesn't compute..0 -
The black vote and the deep SouthCasino_Royale said:That post New Hampshire poll is really weird.
How can Biden now be second with over 25% of the vote when in reality he came fifth with 10% of the vote?
Something doesn't compute..0 -
Perhaps but that means a Trump 2nd term even if a shorter oneMexicanpete said:
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?HYUFD said:
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.Mexicanpete said:
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning0 -
There were many influences on PMs in the past from their social circle. If you read Trollope's Palliser series then you get the general idea. We may actually have far better visibility as to these influences now, but perhaps they're less palatable.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
0 -
HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"0 -
Man City doing a Brexit.0
-
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228390458105221121?s=20HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=200 -
Was it for the whole US?HYUFD said:
The black vote and the deep SouthCasino_Royale said:That post New Hampshire poll is really weird.
How can Biden now be second with over 25% of the vote when in reality he came fifth with 10% of the vote?
Something doesn't compute..
I misread it then. I thought it was a NH poll *after* the NH result.
Which doesn't make any sense to poll actually.0 -
What a T20 tonight0
-
It only makes sense as a test of determination - one can read up the textbook again and again. But many of the questions are obscure and one of the answers is actually wrong - to get the mark for that, you have to deliberately pick the wrong answer.Beibheirli_C said:
66.7% so I failed.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/GuitarMoog/status/1228269285467918336
I got 14. A couple of lucky guesses. At least one question is utter bollx.
I genuinely have no idea why we don't ask difficult questions that would actually be useful for a resident to know.0 -
Not so sure about the importance of the Deputy role. Paedo-finder General didn't exactly clip Corbyn's wings.Omnium said:Evening all.
Re header:
Starmer just isn't going to be a very good leader. He's probably the best choice Labour have, but its really unclear whether he'll facilitate a better choice for his successor. And that's what Labour needs. Not a great leader now, but someone that will give them a great leader some way down the track.
If I switch hats and imagine myself to be a Labour supporter (admittedly I may not be so good at this in that I find myself barking at the moon when I do so) then Nandy is the choice I'd make. From my switched perspective I think she's very good, and even from my unswitched one I think she's quite sensible.
Starmer/Nandy isn't the fight that matters though. The deputy leader election is more important in many ways - Rayner, although almost sure to get the job, is a terrible choice. As a Tory I'm frankly delighted, but given there's a small risk that these people may get to power I worry enormously.
However - no Corbyn, no McDonnell - the nations fortunes are in the sunny uplands.
So long as it is not Long-Bailey, and I still fear it might be, I don't mind who else becomes Leader, even if Burgon becomes Deputy!0 -
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were rightTimT said:HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"0 -
And I seem to recall you making predictions about the Front National.HYUFD said:
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were rightTimT said:HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"0 -
The first SPADs were appointed over 50 years ago by Harold Wilson when the likes of Hugh Gaitskell said they needed more advisers to help them formulate policy from outside the civil service.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
1 -
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
0 -
I said Le Pen could win the first round and she did win most departments even if not the popular voteTimT said:
And I seem to recall you making predictions about the Front National.HYUFD said:
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were rightTimT said:HYUFD said:
Sanders trouncing Bloomberg head to head with Democratic primary voters with Yougov tonight, 53% to 38%Mexicanpete said:
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?speedy2 said:
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"0 -
Bloomberg is the answer if one thinks that the way to fight Trump is to be moderate, civilised (cf. Buttigieg) and extremely rich. The case for Sanders is that it's better to be radical, shouty and have extremely rich friends plus a big supporter base. I like Sanders but I do worry about the Corbyn parallel (not least as I also like Corbyn). At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.1 -
It was either the Florida poll or the national poll yesCasino_Royale said:
Was it for the whole US?HYUFD said:
The black vote and the deep SouthCasino_Royale said:That post New Hampshire poll is really weird.
How can Biden now be second with over 25% of the vote when in reality he came fifth with 10% of the vote?
Something doesn't compute..
I misread it then. I thought it was a NH poll *after* the NH result.
Which doesn't make any sense to poll actually.0 -
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg0 -
HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.2 -
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.0 -
It is all hype not matched by polling realityviewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228390458105221121?s=201 -
WOW! Big news and fully justified!Jonathan said:Man City doing a Brexit.
0 -
I doubt it.Mexicanpete said:
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.0 -
Bernie, can't win Nick. I am not sure who can. Bloomberg has the money to match Trump's spend.NickPalmer said:
Bloomberg is the answer if one thinks that the way to fight Trump is to be moderate, civilised (cf. Buttigieg) and extremely rich. The case for Sanders is that it's better to be radical, shouty and have extremely rich friends plus a big supporter base. I like Sanders but I do worry about the Corbyn parallel (not least as I also like Corbyn). At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.Mexicanpete said:
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.viewcode said:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?MikeSmithson said:
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.0 -
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.viewcode said:
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.1 -
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
1 -
Google Ted Kennedy Volkswagen (images) to see why Chappaquiddick cost him the election.speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Mexicanpete said:
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.0 -
So with United doing so poorly too, do we now have MANCHEXIT ?0
-
You have to remember that was the age when an MP would schlep up to SW1 with his entire household upon election and stay in the vicinity of Westminster for the next 30 years, not a TV camera or a constituency clinic in sight.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
1 -
UEFA Etihad enough?Jonathan said:Man City doing a Brexit.
0 -
I doubt it.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.0 -
I think I'll be shitting my pants all the way to July.Foxy said:
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg0 -
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
Against Sanders I'd say at least 75%speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.0 -
No. That's me, and my fiancee is content with it as I've made lots more from political betting than that previouslyviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
3.5kviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
Ouch!Casino_Royale said:
3.5kviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.
I think the 2.5k may have been Pulpstar.0 -
I don't need to.Mexicanpete said:
Google Ted Kennedy Volkswagen (images) to see why Chappaquiddick cost him the election.speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Mexicanpete said:
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.
And I was not reffering to that scandal only, Kennedy was on the Senate committee that investigated Nixon before the 1972 election, the details that he wrote in his Autobiography about both are killer ones when cross-examined with other published information.
The Democratic party had all the goods but they didn't want McGovern to win the Presidency or Agnew to become President, so they worked methodically to avoid both, and then to get rid of Nixon.0 -
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...Malmesbury said:
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.viewcode said:
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)0 -
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.Foxy said:
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....0 -
I'd make it more like 95%Philip_Thompson said:
Against Sanders I'd say at least 75%speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.1 -
Yikes! Shit dude, I hope you win!Casino_Royale said:
3.5kviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
Oh no! Best of luck to her.Cyclefree said:Christ!
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
Its the selfish bastards who don't immunise their kids fault. Immunisation doesn't have a 100% success rate, but so long as enough people do it then it creates a "herd immunity" as it irradicates it from the community so the ones it failed on [and the ones medically unable to take the immunisation themselves] are protected.
Because of the selfish ignorant dipshits who think they know better than the medical community and all scientists on the matter and deliberately don't immunise their child . . . as a result of that herd immunity has broken down greatly increasing the risk for those who are vulnerable for no fault of their own.5 -
Bloomberg is too fiscally conservative and capitalist for the Democrats, too socially liberal and pro abortion and pro immigration for the Republicans but I still would not rule out him changing his mind and running as an Independent if it is Trump v Sanders as looks increasingly likelyMalmesbury said:
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.Foxy said:
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....0 -
Thank you. Good luck.Pulpstar said:
No. That's me, and my fiancee is content with it as I've made lots more from political betting than that previouslyviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
It mirrors the transfer of power from the Monarch (which civil servants work in his/her name) to elected politicians.viewcode said:
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...Malmesbury said:
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.viewcode said:
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
It's basically a Who Governs question.1 -
It's not easy, because it would mean letting him, to a large degree, swing very hard and dirty at you without responding in quite the same fashion and that could be taken as yielding the field, sitting back and tacking it. On the other hand no one is going to beat Trump at his own game, he's not going to be shamed, his core supporters are not going to suddenly open their eyes at some great burn from his opponent. So trying to be the more civilized one, whilst being tough enough that it doesn't look like weakness, may be better.NickPalmer said:At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.
0 -
You're probably right.rcs1000 said:
I'd make it more like 95%Philip_Thompson said:
Against Sanders I'd say at least 75%speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.0 -
Only four CLPs left to nominate. Thornberry needs three of them.0
-
Tight.SouthamObserver said:Only four CLPs left to nominate. Thornberry needs three of them.
0 -
Yet it is not what some of the head-to-head polls imply. Some actually show Sanders ahead of Trump.rcs1000 said:
I'd make it more like 95%Philip_Thompson said:
Against Sanders I'd say at least 75%speedy2 said:
I doubt it.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely agree.Mexicanpete said:HYUFD
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.0 -
-
I'm less convinced. It depends whether the prevailing mood is to defeat Trump or elect Bloomberg. What's better - living in a nightmare or waking up in hell? As we saw just a few weeks ago, despite having the choice of two terrible options, most people readily chose one or the other.Malmesbury said:
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
As an aside, £650k buys you a candidate in every UK seat but it doesn't buy you representation in a debate. That's the difference - money can't buy you the political record required to be a serious player from scratch.
If your new party won 150 seats in its first election it would be represented in the next election but to go from zero to 326 would require an insurgency level beyond anything credible in this country. As you say, in the US system, an outsider can buy his or her way to the WH though it hasn't yet happened.
0 -
Indeedspeedy2 said:
It mirrors the transfer of power from the Monarch (which civil servants work in his/her name) to elected politicians.viewcode said:
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...Malmesbury said:
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.viewcode said:
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.justin124 said:The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
It's basically a Who Governs question.0 -
Didn't last. Now 2nd fav.viewcode said:
Yikes! Shit dude, I hope you win!Casino_Royale said:
3.5kviewcode said:
Is it you who's in for 2.5k? Somebody mentioned that number recently but I forget whom.Casino_Royale said:
My wife just found out about my Bloomberg bet.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
She isn't happy.0 -
I'd actively campaign for Trump ahead of Bloomberg, even if I didn't have any bets on this.0
-
Nemesis. This is like a Greek tragedy.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Two from three now ...
https://twitter.com/clpnominations/status/1228417636289142784?s=210 -
The Primary system would make any such concentration of power only temporary.Malmesbury said:
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.Foxy said:
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.viewcode said:
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!Casino_Royale said:I expected Bloomberg to go favourite.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
Also Senators have 6 year terms and most of them want to become Presidents too.
And finally you would have the "Ukraine effect" of other billionaire oligarchs trying to organize against their competitor in power and of non-billionaires trying to get power through revolution.
In short, it would degenerate into a feudal state pretty quickly, with competing Dukes, Counts, Barrons, and Peasant Revolts, like Ukraine.0 -
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1228403980394541056
Oh bloody hell. That's the Archers and Today and all the rest f**ked.0
This discussion has been closed.