Punters edging away from the LDs in Mid Beds – politicalbetting.com

El_Capitano said:

I wonder whether the Tory candidate, Bedfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, might be an inspired choice.

Because everyone loves Police & Crime Commissioners, right? The guy round here is a household name and #1 pinup. Dave someone, I think. Or is it Matt. Definitely Matt. Hancock maybe?

NickPalmer said:

FPT (for Josias):

JosiasJessop said:

It's not here that's the matter, it's the voters. Do you have a piccie of the leaflet? For an oldie and baddie, what are the predominant colours on the leaflet?

It's not a leaflet, just an email to party members.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

El_Capitano said:

I wonder whether the Tory candidate, Bedfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, might be an inspired choice.

Because everyone loves Police & Crime Commissioners, right? The guy round here is a household name and #1 pinup. Dave someone, I think. Or is it Matt. Definitely Matt. Hancock maybe?

Crucially, though, he's Bedfordshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, rather than Walthamstow's councillor.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

El_Capitano said:

I wonder whether the Tory candidate, Bedfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, might be an inspired choice.

Because everyone loves Police & Crime Commissioners, right? The guy round here is a household name and #1 pinup. Dave someone, I think. Or is it Matt. Definitely Matt. Hancock maybe?

Crucially, though, he's Bedfordshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, rather than Walthamstow's councillor.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

El_Capitano said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

El_Capitano said:

I wonder whether the Tory candidate, Bedfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, might be an inspired choice.

Because everyone loves Police & Crime Commissioners, right? The guy round here is a household name and #1 pinup. Dave someone, I think. Or is it Matt. Definitely Matt. Hancock maybe?

Crucially, though, he's Bedfordshire's Police and Crime Commissioner, rather than Walthamstow's councillor.

I'll leave it to @SeaShantyIrish2 to do the FDR quote.

Which one? How's about, "We have nothing to fear, but [Keir] fear itself".

SandyRentool said:

Clearly being a PCC is such an important role that being a back bench MP takes priority.

And I imagine that the police won't be getting much oversight when the PCC is too busy campaigning in the by-election.

It is a non-job. Get rid.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

kle4 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

Not as lame as the one's his lawyers attempt. Bit early to be throwing in the towell, what if he's not convicted and he stiffs you on the bill since you've admitted you could not adequately represent him?

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

Longer term Europe needs to step up and fund more of its own defence from Russia.

For the US the trend is towards Asia and containing China as the focus, Russia is more a regional European problem for them

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

"but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.'

UNLESS Ramaswamy's REAL goal is being a player in the (God forbid) NEXT Trump Administration.

Either as Vice President or major cabinet secretary.

Same as for Scott and Burgum methinks.

Sandpit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

No other county is talking about the cost of supporting Ukraine, except the USA.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Note that the date March 4 rings a bell re: presidential history.

PB Pop Quiz - why is that?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

No other county is talking about the cost of supporting Ukraine, except the USA.

Because of Republican pimps for Putin.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 16% nationally.

Westminster VI (27 August):

Labour 44% (+2)
Conservative 28% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (-1)
Reform UK 7% (–)
Green 4% (-2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer leads Sunak by 10%.

At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (27 August)

Keir Starmer 44% (+4)
Rishi Sunak 34% (+1)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer vs Sunak (27 August):

Starmer leads Sunak on ALL 17 leadership characteristic polled, including:

Can bring British people together (48% | 25%)
Stands up for the interests of the UK (43% | 31%)
Is a strong leader (39% | 31%)
Can build a strong economy (39% | 36%)

Rishi Sunak's approval rating is -15%.

Rishi Sunak Approval Rating (27 August):

Disapprove: 45% (-2)
Approve: 30% (+1)
Net: -15% (+3)

Changes +/- 20 August

Keir Starmer's approval rating is +12%.

Keir Starmer Approval Rating (27 August):

Approve: 41% (+2)
Disapprove: 29% (+2)
Net: +12% (–)

Changes +/- 20 August

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

I don't think you are right.

Money is the excuse that is being used, but this isn't about money.

This is about the fact that a substantial minority of Americans see Putin sympathetically. Putin has taken on woke. Putin is a strong leader. Putin is supported by people I support.

A lot of people and organisations have been bought, in America and elsewhere.

Schroder in Germany, of course. Sarkozy in France. Salmond in Scotland. And no doubt a fair number of US politicos too.

Putin has been generous with Russia's money, and people are weak.

We need to see Putin defeated not only for the people of Ukraine, but because Russia's interference in Western democracies should bot be tolerated. Those that took his shilling need to be exposed.

kle4 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Note that the date March 4 rings a bell re: presidential history.

PB Pop Quiz - why is that?

It was when Presidents used to take up office, rather than in January?

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 16% nationally.

Westminster VI (27 August):

Labour 44% (+2)
Conservative 28% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (-1)
Reform UK 7% (–)
Green 4% (-2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer leads Sunak by 10%.

At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (27 August)

Keir Starmer 44% (+4)
Rishi Sunak 34% (+1)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer vs Sunak (27 August):

Starmer leads Sunak on ALL 17 leadership characteristic polled, including:

Can bring British people together (48% | 25%)
Stands up for the interests of the UK (43% | 31%)
Is a strong leader (39% | 31%)
Can build a strong economy (39% | 36%)

Rishi Sunak's approval rating is -15%.

Rishi Sunak Approval Rating (27 August):

Disapprove: 45% (-2)
Approve: 30% (+1)
Net: -15% (+3)

Changes +/- 20 August

Keir Starmer's approval rating is +12%.

Keir Starmer Approval Rating (27 August):

Approve: 41% (+2)
Disapprove: 29% (+2)
Net: +12% (–)

Changes +/- 20 August

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton

Sunak polling 6% above his party there as preferred PM, Starmer polling only the same as Labour

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour leads by 16% nationally.

Westminster VI (27 August):

Labour 44% (+2)
Conservative 28% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (-1)
Reform UK 7% (–)
Green 4% (-2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer leads Sunak by 10%.

At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (27 August)

Keir Starmer 44% (+4)
Rishi Sunak 34% (+1)

Changes +/- 20 August

Starmer vs Sunak (27 August):

Starmer leads Sunak on ALL 17 leadership characteristic polled, including:

Can bring British people together (48% | 25%)
Stands up for the interests of the UK (43% | 31%)
Is a strong leader (39% | 31%)
Can build a strong economy (39% | 36%)

Rishi Sunak's approval rating is -15%.

Rishi Sunak Approval Rating (27 August):

Disapprove: 45% (-2)
Approve: 30% (+1)
Net: -15% (+3)

Changes +/- 20 August

Keir Starmer's approval rating is +12%.

Keir Starmer Approval Rating (27 August):

Approve: 41% (+2)
Disapprove: 29% (+2)
Net: +12% (–)

Changes +/- 20 August

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton

Sunak polling 6% above his party there as preferred PM, Starmer polling only the same as Labour

If the parties were neck and neck I would understand your assertion. But as Sunak's party is16 points adrift, not so much.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

I am NOT "trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as other side of Trump's propaganda".

That is YOUR typical twisting sophistry.

What I am doing, is saying that YOU are the other side of Trump's progaganda on UKR.

As you well know.

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

In terms of actions, I'm fully with you.

But.

We're heading for a country where access to family wealth basically decides whether you can begin to buy a home in parts of the country. And without a place to live near London, you can forget a career in some of the more interesting and powerful professions.

I caught a bit of an interview with Melvin Bragg on Saturday. Could someone have his life path (Carlisle pub to Oxford to the BBC) now? I'm pretty sure that it would be much less likely, and Britain in 2050 will be worse for that.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

I am NOT "trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as other side of Trump's propaganda".

That is YOUR typical twisting sophistry.

What I am doing, is saying that YOU are the other side of Trump's progaganda on UKR.

As you well know.

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

In terms of actions, I'm fully with you.

But.

We're heading for a country where access to family wealth basically decides whether you can begin to buy a home in parts of the country. And without a place to live near London, you can forget a career in some of the more interesting and powerful professions.

I caught a bit of an interview with Melvin Bragg on Saturday. Could someone have his life path (Carlisle pub to Oxford to the BBC) now? I'm pretty sure that it would be much less likely, and Britain in 2050 will be worse for that.

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

I am NOT "trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as other side of Trump's propaganda".

That is YOUR typical twisting sophistry.

What I am doing, is saying that YOU are the other side of Trump's progaganda on UKR.

As you well know.

I see Vivek has been saying that the US should be using the arms they’ve sent to Ukraine to ‘protect’ the border with Mexico.

Which almost makes sense in the context of DeSantis saying he’d invade the place ‘on day one’ of his presidency…

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Is the car insurance industry involved in cartel behaviour? Seems that so many people regardless of what they drive and how they drive it are being hit with huge increases.

My own renewal is a mere 57% increase. The annoying thing is that having shopped around, that appears to be the cheapest!

Two things appear to have sent my quotes into the stratosphere. One, its a company car (though I own the company). Two, I had a not my fault accident with a scrote nearly 4 years ago. So far that has been an annoyance rather than an outrage, but this year it is sending quotes crazy. I took it off a comparison website to compare. On the same insurer (and others copied the behaviour:

No accident: £960
Accident other driver's fault: £2,700

Have they all forgotten how to manage risk?

My son, no points, 9 year NCB on a 1.0 Skoda Fabia (one of the lowest groups available) went from just over £300 in 2022 to over £500 this year with Admiral. He checked out the Meerkats and it was no better with them. A genuine p*** take.

Director bonuses don't pay for themselves.

ping said:

Mexicanpete said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Is the car insurance industry involved in cartel behaviour? Seems that so many people regardless of what they drive and how they drive it are being hit with huge increases.

My own renewal is a mere 57% increase. The annoying thing is that having shopped around, that appears to be the cheapest!

Two things appear to have sent my quotes into the stratosphere. One, its a company car (though I own the company). Two, I had a not my fault accident with a scrote nearly 4 years ago. So far that has been an annoyance rather than an outrage, but this year it is sending quotes crazy. I took it off a comparison website to compare. On the same insurer (and others copied the behaviour:

No accident: £960
Accident other driver's fault: £2,700

Have they all forgotten how to manage risk?

My son, no points, 9 year NCB on a 1.0 Skoda Fabia (one of the lowest groups available) went from just over £300 in 2022 to over £500 this year with Admiral. He checked out the Meerkats and it was no better with them. A genuine p*** take.

Director bonuses don't pay for themselves.

As I posted before, I’m pretty sure the main factor is the rise in interest rates.

Blame Truss/Sunak/Covid/Central Banks (delete as appropriate).

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

I am NOT "trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as other side of Trump's propaganda".

That is YOUR typical twisting sophistry.

What I am doing, is saying that YOU are the other side of Trump's progaganda on UKR.

As you well know.

I see Vivek has been saying that the US should be using the arms they’ve sent to Ukraine to ‘protect’ the border with Mexico.

Which almost makes sense in the context of DeSantis saying he’d invade the place ‘on day one’ of his presidency…

Perhaps the USA should annex Mexico? Can't believe there'd be much resistance south of the border.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

williamglenn said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Jim_Miller said:

On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/

There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.

(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)

North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.

Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.

And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.

Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.

As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.

> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.

> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.

Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.

They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.

I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….

To call him naive would be overly generous.

Bloody Hell!

He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.

Glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately I hadn't really followed him until the last couple of days, so his view on Ukraine was the first thing I saw and an immediate deal-breaker.

He sounds intelligent, and can communicate well, but what he's saying absolutely isn't smart.

Hopefully whoever wins next year is someone that will unambiguously continue to support Ukraine..

The problem is that US politics is now running on the “cost” of supporting Ukraine.

Which is utterly disengenuous on the part of Biden. The objection to Ukraine in the US, is mostly centered around the cost of the war set against domestic priorities.

The problem is that the cost of the war isn’t the cost of the war. Biden’s saying that donating a bunch of missiles that were about to be retired, and cost $100m two decades ago, are now “$5bn in aid to Ukraine”, suggesting that he’s making a choice between spending the $5bn in Ukraine and $5bn domestically. When there’s never anything close to actually $5bn going to Ukraine, the marginal cost is no more than the cost of transport planes between the US and Poland.

So Joe Biden is the problem here? Pretty fucking lame, even for a Trump talking point!

It's a Trump talking point that Biden is overstating how much he's given to Ukraine?

It's a Trump talking point to say that, and also to talk about how much aid to UKR is costing USA.

As you well know.

To be fair, Trump has threatened Putin with an ultimatum that he will give much more to Ukraine than Biden has done if Putin doesn't agree to a deal.

Biden's slow-walking of military aid hasn't gone unnoticed in Ukraine.

To be fair, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy with the help of Rudi Giulianni among others.

"Slow-walking" and "over-spending" re: Biden > UKR being two-sides of Trump's current propaganda.

As you well know.

Trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as the other side of Trump's propaganda is extremely cynical. I can cite plenty of actual Ukrainians making the same point, so for you to dismiss it makes it sound like you see them as mere pawns in your domestic political game.

I am NOT "trying to paint the anti-Russian Cold Warrior faction of the Republicans as other side of Trump's propaganda".

That is YOUR typical twisting sophistry.

What I am doing, is saying that YOU are the other side of Trump's progaganda on UKR.

As you well know.

I see Vivek has been saying that the US should be using the arms they’ve sent to Ukraine to ‘protect’ the border with Mexico.

Which almost makes sense in the context of DeSantis saying he’d invade the place ‘on day one’ of his presidency…

Perhaps the USA should annex Mexico? Can't believe there'd be much resistance south of the border.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

dixiedean said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

Sadly.
I was talking last week with someone aged 70 whose daughter asked for help with a deposit a few years ago.
He refused. So they had a row, he cut her off and is going to leave the house to an animal charity.
He didn't seem to think that was at all an overreaction to her "cheek".

I really cannot imagine any parent behaving in such a callous manner against their own daughter

dixiedean said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Stuartinromford said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This isn't sustainable.

Parents and grandparents are facing a retirement cash crunch as they prepare to contribute a record £8.1bn towards younger buyers’ house purchases this year, a report has warned.

Money from relatives will help fund close to half of all purchases by under-55s in 2023, according to research by Legal & General and the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr).

It is a significant jump from 35pc in 2020, when the research was last carried out. For under-35s, the share is expected to jump from just under half in 2020 to 57pc this year as rising interest rates push up mortgage payments.

The Bank of England has raised interest rates 14 consecutive times since December 2021 to 5.25pc, wiping tens of thousands of pounds off what the average borrower can afford.

The average amount of financial support from relatives is expected to hit £25,600 this year, L&G’s research found.

Bernie Hickman, chief executive of Legal & General Retail, which has 12 million policyholders, warned the record sums put many older people at risk of running out of money later in life.

He said: “Our research clearly shows that gifting or lending money to loved ones to get on the property ladder has noticeably impacted [the givers’] finances.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/28/families-fund-record-8bn-family-buy-first-time-house/

Well it helped you get on the property ladder and me

I repaid my parents their deposit and other support within 5 years.

The reality was their intervention allowed me to get on the property aged 21 before I had even started work.

I'm an only child, what do parents do if they have more than one child.

Save.

The moment my daughter was born I started putting away £100 a month in an ISA with Skandia (later Old Mutual) . When she turned 18 we gave her the choice of using it for paying her University fees or having it for a deposit on a house. In the end she took out the student loan for the tuition fees but nothing for the additional support/living loan. It means she still has a good deposit on a house left over.

We have done the same with my son who is 7 years younger. To pay for it we simply didn't have or do a lot of the things other people do. No fancy holidays, always had second hand cars, no expensive habits.

That's splendid, if you can do that.

What about people whose parents don't have £100 a month to spare?

Then they don't do it. Or they do a lesser amount.

The trouble is that having kids is about making sacrifices and whilst there are many people who are genuinely unable to do that there are also many more who are not willing. They would not sacrifice their holiday in the sun each year or their new car every two years simply to ensure their kids had some support to start them in adult life. And too often these have been people of my age and my 'class' who had all the benefits and are now unwilling to pass them on.

As I say this obviously doesn't apply to everyone, or perhaps even the majority. But if you can afford a foreign holiday every year then you can afford to put something by for your kids' future.

Sadly.
I was talking last week with someone aged 70 whose daughter asked for help with a deposit a few years ago.
He refused. So they had a row, he cut her off and is going to leave the house to an animal charity.
He didn't seem to think that was at all an overreaction to her "cheek".