1. Smallest Labour lead Q1: 11 points 2. Date of GE: 10th October 2024 3. Party Leaders: All as now 4. GE outcome: Lab Maj of 104 5. US nominees: Biden and Trump 6. Winner: Biden 7. UK base rate at end year: 4.0% 8, CPI Nov: 3.0% 9. Borrowing: £132bn 10. Medals: 58
...Over how much of history, over how many slave owners and slave dealers over how many thousand years, are you applying your 21st Century morality that slavery is wrong?...
NEW THREAD This thread has gone as Nostradamus predicted: The year 2024, from second day shall a new egg fall, cracking thus on a pointer gamely punting, yoking over with New World consequence in divining.
He’s ahead in the polls, Biden is senile (and won’t be able to avoid debates this time), the Donald will delay or overcome his legal problems, and the migration issue is a crapshow for the democrats
I reckon Trump should be a slight favourite to win
The Biden senility thing is as ridiculous as Obama being aloof and arrogant. It is a meme that works when you are terminally online, have Fox News pushing a narrative, and you see things in terms of short cherry picked video clips. It's easy to select moments that make him look out of touch when he has a stutter.
During an actual campaign, this will fall apart. And perhaps people will start paying attention to Trump's rantings about windmills or false memories about running against George Bush.
He literally wanders off stage the wrong way, calls dead people to ask him questions, and praises the Black and Tans in Ireland
This is not “a stutter”
We seem to woefully underreport US politics over here, and do so through quite a liberal perspective that would never be permitted were it our domestic politics.
For example, the migration numbers coming across the southern US border are simply insane (think Channel boats x 100, but getting steadily worse not better) and Biden seems powerless to stop it at best and disinterested at worst.
Hardly mentioned here. Where everyone seems to focus on Trump and his court cases, and how terrible he is.
There’s no actual way to stop it
A significant number of people are migrating from Latin America (forget exactly where but south of the Darien Gap).
The only way to stop that is the equivalent of a Marshall Plan for that region, rebuilding civic society to make them appealing countries to live in.
No one has the appetite for that.
So how do you stop them?
The Mexico USA border is both long and also unique in being the only land border between a first and a 3rd world nation (hinges a bit on definitions).
Rather like the migrations across the Sahara and Mediterranean it really isn't possible to make it hostile enough short of murder.
The only really way to intervene is to turn failed states into viable ones, particularly those like Mexico controlling access to the border.
Mexico is not a failed state - it certainly has the attributes of one, particularly given the cartel wars, but it also still functions and, economically, is going decently.I agree more needs to be done with other LatAm states.
However, it should also be pointed out that the biggest single increase has come from non-LatAm areas who now see the Mexico border as the easiest way to gain entry. And the single biggest cause of the explosion in migrants coming to the US is the signal Biden sent out that everyone is welcome.
That is the reason Biden is getting hammered in the polls on this issue. You can look at it from a nice cosy UK angle and think “if only the US was more welcoming” but the numbers coming in are truly epoch making.
It is also worthwhile pointing out that many of those who most strongly support immigration I.e. wealthy urban types are also those who benefit most from having an increasing supply of cheap labour that often doesn’t speak English (so doesn’t understand their rights)….
Mexico is not quite a failed state, but approaches that in certain states. Every border has two sides and controlling crossings requires both sides to enforce a common set of rules. Mexico could stop the migrant caravans if it wanted, but clearly does not.
France and Albania arent failed states either, but it was cooperation with these (and some money) that cut the number of irregular arrivals.
For Mexico, there is no incentive - and much disincentive - to curtail the migration namely the migrants may decide to stay in Mexico given the latter is relatively wealthier than the places from which many migrants have come.
There is also the issue that the US and Mexico have deep rooted historical beefs so there is a naturally tendency within Mexico to do things that discomfort the US - and the migrant issue is definitely one of those.
But one of the big underlying issues this leads back to - which doesn’t get much attention here aka @CasinoRoyale - is that there is a major split developing within the Democrats between the progressives and the centrists. That’s been caused by Gaza but, if Biden cracks down on immigration, he risks opening a ‘second front’ when it comes to the left of his party, and he can’t afford to do that.
Blinken was in Mexico last week to work out the issue (check how much Mexico needs to send the migrants South). The CNN report suggested 9/10 migrants stay in Mexico, so the border crossers are just the tip of an enormous iceberg. An iceberg Mexico would be happy to assist a return from whence it came.
Problem is that Mexico has lost control of a number of its states and those immigrants are good for the cartels generally (money, cheap labour etc) so Mexico trying to enforce people going back to where they came isn’t going to work. It’s far easier to let them continue to the US.
I thought you said Mexico wasn't a failed state?
Read my original post again. I said that Mexico has attributes of a failed state, namely around the cartels, but overall it probably isn’t. Having lost control of a number of states doesn’t negate that.
A state that has lost control of part of its territory is by definition a failed state.
failed state: a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica.)
So you are saying it is and isn't a failed state.
According to the Bertelsmann Transformation Index - which is probably the leading non-governmental source for what is / not a failed state - Mexico is not a failed state but does have highly defective characteristics.
But I am sure you know better…
I'm not talking about whether it is or not. I'm talking about the holes in your argument.
You have said Mexico isn't a failed state so it could stop the migrants if it wanted.
You then say Mexico has lost control of its territory (which would make it a failed state) so some of the migrants are staying there but that's still Biden's fault because reasons.
You also say migrants don't stay in Mexico except for all the ones that do.
Ultimately your argument is totally illogical. It does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
And you've still not explained why if Biden 'throwing open the door' is the reason for it, the current surge in migrant numbers started under Trump.
I’m using an internationally accepted definition of what is a failed state and what is not, and you seem to reject that. That’s your choice but it’s not illogical. To repeat, Mexico is not a failed state overall but it does have certain characteristics of one. And that is recognised by internationally recognised bodies.
I also didn’t say all migrants stay in Mexico. What I said was what they want is the US but they will take Mexico because - in many cases - relatively it is better than where they came from. Again it is all in the original posts for everyone to see.
As for the current surge started to Trump, as I said, Trump saw a surge in 2019 (and other years had seen a surge) but - as I pointed out and actually posted the links to the original reports - the rate has massively surged under Biden.
You can rage against the facts all you want and try and claim I said things I didn’t but, in the US, it is clear migrant numbers are surging and the Administration is seen to be at fault.
You have said these things. Whether you meant them is another question. You have repeatedly made contradictory assertions and tried to wriggle out by giving misdirected replies.
The rate has continued surging under Biden. Nobody is disputing that. Heck, I’ve even posted the figures for you several times. But it was surging under Trump as well. In fact, the current rate is a pretty natural progression from levels in summer 2020.
Yet you have laid the whole blame on Biden. I have asked - twice - how you account for the rise beginning before he took office. And you have twice refused to reply.
Your analysis is certainly not based on facts. Look at the rubbish you spout about Biden resigning upthread and your weird obsession with Hunter Biden’s laptop. Or your false claims about Trump’s gagging order. It’s amusing you told another poster they shouldn’t say things with certainty because they know nothing about it.)
It’s based on your irrational loathing of Biden for daring to beat Trump. As you demonstrated in calling him ‘Slow Joe’ while criticising @TSE for calling Trump ‘odious.’
And that’s why, ultimately, your so-called analysis keeps getting called out. It’s because it’s nonsensical.
I’ve been pretty consistent re my definition of a failed state back to what I replied to @Foxy. It is all in the posts for everyone to see.
I also mentioned that years do have surges as in 2019 and 2014 but they tend to come back down. Even before Covid, the numbers into the States were lowering off in 2020. Surges happen.
The reason for blaming Biden is pretty logical - the numbers have massively surged far beyond what they were in the past and where there isn’t an obvious causal factor that wasn’t there before.
And as for blaming the Administration, don’t take my word for it, look at the increasing number of Democrat politicians who are saying the same. Everyone in the US - bar some left-wing activists and immigration groups - know the situation is out of control and that it’s happened on Biden’s watch.
Re your other stuff, as I pointed out, you have posted from time immemorial that any claims about Hunter and Joe are false and yet time and time again you have been proven to be wrong. As I said, I don’t think there is enough evidence to impeach Biden - and in reality it’s a side show - but I’ve certainly being more spot on the ball than you have.
The simple fact is all you are proving is what @CasinoRoyale said before - namely that views on what is happening in the US on this website are totally skewed. We get countless updates from you and your sidekick Robin aka @Nigelb as to ‘Trump’s in court’ or ‘so and so said that’ but it’s irrelevant.
And hence my dig at @TSE - we are seriously talking on a betting website about Trump smelling as a reason to bet against him. Seriously? WTF.
You’ve lost the plot. Stay away from the Trump stuff.
The simple fact is you've been wrong on everything to do with Hunter Biden and Trump. And you know it. Which is why you never cite your sources.
Very simply, Hunter Biden's an idiot - indeed a criminal - with a history of firearms offences, drug problems and tax frauds who once had a laptop nicked. But somehow that means Biden's going to resign because Biden is Slow Joe.
Being accused of 'losing the plot' by you merely confirms me in my views that I'm in the right.
And you still haven't explained *why* migration was surging under Trump (and it was, as you yourself admit) if it's Biden's fault.
Again, the claim he opened the borders or said all are welcome is in origin a Tucker Carlson claim. Why do you listen to him?
And finally, we come back to you think Trump should be allowed on the ballot unless convicted of a crime (reasonable) but then think he should not be prosecuted for any crimes essentially because he's Trump (which is not reasonable).
So, again, your analysis is worthless. You accuse me of knowing nothing about US politics but everyone on this board (bearing in mind everyone here is calling you out) knows a great deal more than you.
Ok, there are a number of things in there which I didn’t actually say, a number of things which are factually incorrect and a number of points where you seem to be convinced of your intellectual / moral superiority. Overall, I’d say a typical post from you when it comes to discussing anything to do with Trump.
Every single poster is calling you out as wrong. And all you do is repeat the same nonsense.
Every single poster is calling out your factual errors. And all you do is try to twist the facts so you can continue to support your untenable position.
Every single thing you say is designed to support a deranged criminal who last time he was in office led a failed coup.
I’d consider it an actionable insult if somebody suggested I was intellectually or morally inferior to you.
But more importantly, I’m right and you’re wrong. And that’s why your ‘analysis’ is getting rejected. It’s not because we hate Trump (although because he’s an absolutely vile excuse for a human being and was a terrible President most of us do) and you love him, but because it’s a load of rubbish.
If you can’t deal with that and being repeatedly shown to be wrong-feel free to stop posting about it.
Your post is untypical, of course. It didn’t accuse random allegations of Fascism, mental illness or more than fairly mild personal abuse. It was typical in the sense it was totally wrong, but I suppose it’s progress of a sort.
Recording it, hope it's good - should be with Toby Jones.
Both sad and utterly infuriating.
I was talking to a usually very well informed person a few days ago and they hadn't heard of the Post Office scandal. Hopefully this programme might change that for quite a few people.
On twitter some people are just learning about it for the first time and are shocked and appalled.
Hopefully this shines a light on the actions/inactions of some people who have serious questions to answer e.g. Paula Vennells.
Michael Crick on Twitter pointing the finger at Ed Davey, who was a Business Minister at the time.
I laid into him on here and on Twitter on 22 December. What took Michael Crick so long?
"I do not share the "oh wasn't Ed Davey a good Minister" view. He was the Minister responsible for Postal Affairs between 2010 - 2012 when the Horizon debacle was in full swing. He was approached by subpostmasters complaining about the issues with Horizon and the prosecutions and simply replied that the Post Office told him that all was hunky dory and so they should fuck off. He even refused a meeting.
Two years ago - when some of the convictions were overturned - he said that he should have asked more questions of the Post Office. No shit, Sherlock! That was his fucking job and he failed at it. His job was not to sit there just passing on messages without any level of professional curiosity. A well trained Labrador could do that. Instead, like so many Ministers he just sat there doing sod all, getting his knighthood and then trousers £275,000 in consultancy fees from one of the law firms involved in advising the Post Office in how to defeat the subpostmasters. That sum is more than the average compensation paid to those few subpostmasters who have actually received any compensation. And is on top of his Parliamentary salary and pension.
Since that one interview there's been silence from him about this matter. What Ministers did and did not do is not part of the scope of the Williams Inquiry. So we will learn nothing about what happened and a fresh set of Ministers can repeat the same or worse mistakes at the expense of the little people they claim to represent and in whose service they are meant to be working.
We get exercised by the Michelle Mones of this world. We should get equally exercised by grifting do-nothing Ministers.
And the subpostmaster he refused to meet? One Alan Bates. The man whose story is being told in the ITV drama this New Year. The other day I was chatting to one of local shopkeepers about other matters and she happened to mention this programme and what she'd learnt from the publicity about what had been going on. She was furious. She is another small businesswoman of the type who might have been running a Post Office. I really hope this drama does bring this matter to the wider public and puts some pressure on politicians."
And it's not just Paula Vennells. There are lots of people from the CEOs down at every level of the Post Office and the Royal Mail who have serious questions to answer.
I have a little bit of sympathy on refusing a meeting.
If you are the ultimate authority over an entity that is involved in litigation then you don’t want to meet with the other side.
But he should have been asking questions privately
The Bates litigation had not started when Davey was a Minister. He should have had the meeting. He was being both lazy and incurious. He was not doing his job.
1. Smallest Labour lead Q1: 15 points 2. Date of GE: 19th September 2024 3. Party Leaders: As now except Farage Reform 4. GE outcome: Lab Maj of 85 5. US nominees: Buttigieg and Christie 6. Winner: Buttigieg 7. UK base rate at end year: 3.75% 8, CPI Nov: 2.5% 9. Borrowing: £105bn 10. Medals: 56
Interest range of BOE base rates. Worth noting that the market is expecting 3.25% but a poll of economists by the FT looks to have a mean view of 4%, which looks to be the rough PB average too.
1. 9% smallest Labour lead in Q1. 2. October 19 General Election. 3. Party Leaders all the same. 4. Labour, 70 majority. 5. Hayley and Biden to stand for US President. 6. Biden gets the winner's dinner. 7. 4.25% interest rate. 8. 2.9% CPI. 9. £133 bn borrowing. 10. 54 medals.
1. 11% smallest Labour lead in Q1. 2. November 21st General Election. 3. No change in party leaders 4. Labour, 68 majority. 5. Trump and Biden to be nominees 6. Biden to win 7. 4.25% interest rate. 8. 2.6% CPI. 9. £131b borrowing. 10. 62 medals.
Comments
2. Date of GE: 10th October 2024
3. Party Leaders: All as now
4. GE outcome: Lab Maj of 104
5. US nominees: Biden and Trump
6. Winner: Biden
7. UK base rate at end year: 4.0%
8, CPI Nov: 3.0%
9. Borrowing: £132bn
10. Medals: 58
All of them!
This thread has gone as Nostradamus predicted:
The year 2024, from second day shall a new egg fall, cracking thus on a pointer gamely punting, yoking over with New World consequence in divining.
Every single poster is calling out your factual errors. And all you do is try to twist the facts so you can continue to support your untenable position.
Every single thing you say is designed to support a deranged criminal who last time he was in office led a failed coup.
I’d consider it an actionable insult if somebody suggested I was intellectually or morally inferior to you.
But more importantly, I’m right and you’re wrong. And that’s why your ‘analysis’ is getting rejected. It’s not because we hate Trump (although because he’s an absolutely vile excuse for a human being and was a terrible President most of us do) and you love him, but because it’s a load of rubbish.
If you can’t deal with that and being repeatedly shown to be wrong-feel free to stop posting about it.
Your post is untypical, of course. It didn’t accuse random allegations of Fascism, mental illness or more than fairly mild personal abuse. It was typical in the sense it was totally wrong, but I suppose it’s progress of a sort.
2. Date of GE: 19th September 2024
3. Party Leaders: As now except Farage Reform
4. GE outcome: Lab Maj of 85
5. US nominees: Buttigieg and Christie
6. Winner: Buttigieg
7. UK base rate at end year: 3.75%
8, CPI Nov: 2.5%
9. Borrowing: £105bn
10. Medals: 56
2 14 Nov 2024
3 no change from now
4 Lab majority 50
5 Biden and Trump
6 Biden
7 3.25%
8 2.6%
9 £119bn
10 62.
Thanks for organising!
2. 24th Oct
3. Sunak/Starmer/Humza Yousaf/Tice
4. Labour - 254
5. Haley/Biden
6. Biden
7. 3.25%
8. 3.4%
9. £125 billion
10. 52
Thanks Ben!
2. 2 May 2024.
3. Unchanged from now.
4. Labour majority 14 seats.
5. Trump and Biden
6. Trump
7. 4.25%
8. 3.8%
9. £128.5 bn.
10. 39
2. 21 November 2024
3. Unchanged from now
4. Labour Majority 60 seats
5. Trump and Biden
6. Biden
7. 4.00%
8. 3.4%
9. £104bn
10. 58
Worth noting that the market is expecting 3.25% but a poll of economists by the FT looks to have a mean view of 4%, which looks to be the rough PB average too.
2. October 19 General Election.
3. Party Leaders all the same.
4. Labour, 70 majority.
5. Hayley and Biden to stand for US President.
6. Biden gets the winner's dinner.
7. 4.25% interest rate.
8. 2.9% CPI.
9. £133 bn borrowing.
10. 54 medals.
2. November 21st General Election.
3. No change in party leaders
4. Labour, 68 majority.
5. Trump and Biden to be nominees
6. Biden to win
7. 4.25% interest rate.
8. 2.6% CPI.
9. £131b borrowing.
10. 62 medals.
1. The smallest Labour lead with a BPC registered pollster in Q1 2024.
- 9 Points
2. Date of the next UK General Election.
- 02 May 24
3. Party leaders of Con, Lab, LD, SNP, and Reform when the GE is called
- All existing bar Reform that'll be Farage
4. UK General Election outcome: winning party + majority (±10%).
- Labour / 90
5. 2024 US Presidential Election: nominees for the GOP and Dems.
- Haley & Biden
6. 2024 US Presidential Election: winner.
- Biden
7. UK base rate on 31 December 2024.
- 4.75
8. UK CPI figure for November 2024 (Nov 2023 = 4.2%).
- 4
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2024 (Year to Nov 2023 = £116.4bn).
- £99 bn
10. GB total medal haul at the 2024 Olympics ( 2020/21 = 64).
- 49