Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
My original post just had the numbers for Biden v Haley, so the joke was that it could be in the bag if they picked her. Then I saw that they also polled Biden v Trump so added that for completeness.
10pm @GBNEWS: A group of men from Syria & Kuwait have been convicted of raping and abusing a child in Newcastle. BBC Newsnight did a puff piece on the now confirmed grooming gang in 2016, saying how awful it was that they’d been accused of such crimes.
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
I am shocked at 2.
In 1975 our Head of Rural Science mysteriously disappeared from school. In early 1976 there was a report on ATV Today confirming he had been sentenced to 15 months in Winson Green for statutory rape. He was married, in his early thirties and had been conducting a sexual relationship with a 15 year old student for a number of months.
By today's standards the sentence was lenient, but fair play no suspended sentence, he was banged to rights, " straight to jail and do not pass go". I am shocked 50 years later we have gone backwards.
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true.
If you live in the UK then a DJT vs JRB presidency doesn't really affect you at all. Biden is a bit more warry, if you like that sort of thing.
Yes given Haley has a 9 point lead over Biden if Republicans picked her they likely would have it in the bag.
Fortunely for Biden it looks like Super Tuesday will effectively almost seal Trump as their nominee. Trump has only a 4 point lead over Biden with 4 potential criminal trials facing him too over the next few months each of which could lead to jail time
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
It is judges who sentence child sex abuse viewing offenders not the police and those sentences are not far from the CPS sentencing guidance. Of course sentences of less than 2 years can be suspended and mostly will be if a guilty plea and/or first offence
I am well aware of who sentences. But as usual you miss the point. These are serious offences. Each of those images is a crime scene. Serious offences like these should not be getting suspended sentences. The guidelines reflect how little society values children subjected to horrific crimes. Compare these sentences with the sorts of crimes for which women get imprisoned.
10pm @GBNEWS: A group of men from Syria & Kuwait have been convicted of raping and abusing a child in Newcastle. BBC Newsnight did a puff piece on the now confirmed grooming gang in 2016, saying how awful it was that they’d been accused of such crimes.
Here's a time sink that I recently learned about. My sister works for a major university in London and she's attempting to recruit a junior to mid level finance analyst in her division. They had 143 applications for the job and because of some insane rules she has to read every single application to give feedback on why they're unsuitable. It's taken her hours and hours to do it and she's said she found the person she wanted by the 5th application, set up the interview and is moving to offer stage. Yet due to the odd rules of the public sector she couldn't shut the process down until the originally stated date and she can't just reply to the rest saying the job has been filled already.
As someone who has hired many, many people the thought of having to reply to every applicant would make me never bother with it. One of the jobs we put out there "Junior Investment Analyst -no degree required" had over 500 applications just from one partner. We used a machine learning sorting system to get through it, iirc by the end of the week there were something like 2000 applications across all partners.
We don't respond to all applications at my university, but all are read by someone (not necessarily in full - you can screen them out as soon as you can see not suitable). Online system and HR or an automated process informs those rejected.
Some academics give feedback to all interviewees, but not all - I normally say they can ask for if they like. If someone was particularly good and I would like to hire them in future I let them know.
ETA: As rottenborough says, we don't tend to look at applications until after the closing date, although we are able to. Shortlisting is always after the closing date.
Be thankful you don't get involved in the endless process of even 'designing' the job description.
Even once it's gone out - I have to read through every single applicant no matter how obviously unfit for the job they are. Then fill in a spreadsheet row for each that ticks various boxes for why they are unfit for the job. Then email that back to HR, Then that kicks off another similar process for the people who _were_ fit for the job. Which then kicks off another...
The candidate we finally pick - I have to write a report justifying why we don't hire them at the very, very bottom of the salary scale. Which quite often delays things enough that the person has found another role. Which kicks off the entire process again.
I wrote an automation for the whole process (or at least cut 99% of if out) but which still ticked all of the tick-boxes.
Which - praise be! - is still entirely ignored several years later.
Only two new senior managers in between who have gone on to better paid things.
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
Look on the bright side - we're getting the top talking points from Radio Musko.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
It is judges who sentence child sex abuse viewing offenders not the police and those sentences are not far from the CPS sentencing guidance. Of course sentences of less than 2 years can be suspended and mostly will be if a guilty plea and/or first offence
I am well aware of who sentences. But as usual you miss the point. These are serious offences. Each of those images is a crime scene. Serious offences like these should not be getting suspended sentences. The guidelines reflect how little society values children subjected to horrific crimes. Compare these sentences with the sorts of crimes for which women get imprisoned.
I've possibly missed it - but I'd be interested (honestly!) in your thoughts on the 'AI' image generators (and indeed 'personality generators') with regards to this. I know it's technically illegal in the UK at least - but I've seen some youtube interviews with some quite 'senior' silicon valley types who seem to look on it as a panacea. Which rather made me recoil.
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
It is judges who sentence child sex abuse viewing offenders not the police and those sentences are not far from the CPS sentencing guidance. Of course sentences of less than 2 years can be suspended and mostly will be if a guilty plea and/or first offence
I am well aware of who sentences. But as usual you miss the point. These are serious offences. Each of those images is a crime scene. Serious offences like these should not be getting suspended sentences. The guidelines reflect how little society values children subjected to horrific crimes. Compare these sentences with the sorts of crimes for which women get imprisoned.
Like what? Women have been sentenced for viewing indecent images too even though less common than men are convicted of it.
It is Parliament which sets the overall range of sentence for these crimes, the CPS just applies it. The stiffest sentences should of course be reserved for those who produce these child abuse films and images, the cases you showcased while illegal actions were mainly viewers of it
After discussing whether she was in the crosswalk and how far she was thrown, [SPD Officer] Auderer [who investigated the incident shortly after it occured] says, "But she is dead," and laughs several seconds later.
Toward the end of the 2 1/2-minute video, Auderer says, "Yeah, just write a check," followed by laughter.
"Eleven thousand dollars. She was 26, anyway," he said, misstating Kandula's age. "She had limited value."
SSI - Note that Officer Auderer is (or at least was back then) the vice president of the Seattle Police Guild (union).
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
Is this any more tiresome ramping than people posting U.K. electoral polling ?
I don’t see how it’s trolling at all.
I thought I made myself clear " the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" is patently untrue- for the moment at least.
Normally UK polls are posted on here with limited comment. We all tend to read them from different perspectives. The last thing I would like to see is another five years of Conservative Governments, and at the moment their re-election isn't looking likely. Nonetheless the election is not in the bag for Labour. The narrative could well have changed considerably by 23rd January next year. Indeed with what looks to be a very impressive budget from Hunt that has shot all of Labour's economic foxes, with Galloway's win and his crushing personal attack on Starmer and Sunak's ( what looked to be an odd stunt of a) speech on Friday is gaining traction and the dial is already moving to the Conservatives who have clawed back seven points in the latest poll in a week.
So there is much water to flow under the Bridge, and were I of a religious disposition I would be praying for a Dem win. The election is not "in the bag". We are expecting rapid swingback to the Tories here, why should that not happen too in the US?
Yes given Haley has a 9 point lead over Biden if Republicans picked her they likely would have it in the bag.
Fortunely for Biden it looks like Super Tuesday will effectively almost seal Trump as their nominee. Trump has only a 4 point lead over Biden with 4 potential criminal trials facing him too over the next few months each of which could lead to jail time
The question is will Trump the return be like the pretty incompetent 2016 Trump full of offensive tweets going nowhere or will it be a new hardcore Trump someone who could do real damage to us democracy.
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true.
If you live in the UK then a DJT vs JRB presidency doesn't really affect you at all. Biden is a bit more warry, if you like that sort of thing.
Yes given Haley has a 9 point lead over Biden if Republicans picked her they likely would have it in the bag.
Fortunely for Biden it looks like Super Tuesday will effectively almost seal Trump as their nominee. Trump has only a 4 point lead over Biden with 4 potential criminal trials facing him too over the next few months each of which could lead to jail time
The question is will Trump the return be like the pretty incompetent 2016 Trump full of offensive tweets going nowhere or will it be a new hardcore Trump someone who could do real damage to us democracy.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
I really hope Keir Starmer is just pretending to be tony blair mark 2 because this country needs radical action now.
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
Is this any more tiresome ramping than people posting U.K. electoral polling ?
I don’t see how it’s trolling at all.
I thought I made myself clear " the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" is patently untrue- for the moment at least.
Normally UK polls are posted on here with limited comment. We all tend to read them from different perspectives. The last thing I would like to see is another five years of Conservative Governments, and at the moment their re-election isn't looking likely. Nonetheless the election is not in the bag for Labour. The narrative could well have changed considerably by 23rd January next year. Indeed with what looks to be a very impressive budget from Hunt that has shot all of Labour's economic foxes, with Galloway's win and his crushing personal attack on Starmer and Sunak's ( what looked to be an odd stunt of a) speech on Friday is gaining traction and the dial is already moving to the Conservatives who have clawed back seven points in the latest poll in a week.
So there is much water to flow under the Bridge, and were I of a religious disposition I would be praying for a Dem win. The election is not "in the bag". We are expecting rapid swingback to the Tories here, why should that not happen too in the US?
I was with you.
But now you yourself are trolling, cherrypicking polls to suit your tiresome narrative and making spurious unsubstantiated claims about Sunny’s speech gaining traction.
The highlight however was your appraisal of Hunt’s “impressive budget” - which hasn’t even happened yet.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Did I say he shouldn't post on here? No I didn't. Besides which, it's none of my business. Did I accuse him of trolling? Yes I did and he's very good at it. I used to love when he would troll Brexiters just after the EURef. Oh, those were the days.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I think this story more or less sums up the government. A minister, picking up on some half arsed nonsense from one of its client right wing AstroTurf outfits, casually libels a couple of academics in the name of owning the Libz. And then when they sue her for defamation the taxpayer is somehow on the hook for the resulting damages. While she somehow keeps her job. Please, in the Name of God, can these clowns just go?
What? The government is paying the costs?
Da fucq?
I assume she personally is, not the government.
No the government, ie you and me, are paying.
From the article:
"Donelan’s department said that it had paid the damages and legal costs when asked who had done so, adding: “This was subject to all the usual cross-government processes and aims to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action.”
A No 10 source said Rishi Sunak had full confidence in Donelan, calling her “an excellent minister”."
Thanks for highlighting that and correcting me, @OnlyLivingBoy. Madness. She should either pay herself or resign for bringing the office into disrepute.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
He was on this forum when I joined in 2014 and in those days was very pro Europe
He has undergone a political journey and annoys some on here but he is not a troll
William is a fascinating character. He fashioned himself as a kind of pro-Trump intellectual and then became an arch-EU guy (for niche reasons it must be said). He now appears to be a convert to Braverman Toryism. Let us just rejoice in the colourfulness that is PB!
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
Oh right, a wholly different poster, but one with an uncannily similar name. I've got you now, that makes perfect sense. He was a good poster, this one not so much.
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
I am shocked at 2.
In 1975 our Head of Rural Science mysteriously disappeared from school. In early 1976 there was a report on ATV Today confirming he had been sentenced to 15 months in Winson Green for statutory rape. He was married, in his early thirties and had been conducting a sexual relationship with a 15 year old student for a number of months.
By today's standards the sentence was lenient, but fair play no suspended sentence, he was banged to rights, " straight to jail and do not pass go". I am shocked 50 years later we have gone backwards.
I'm not entirely sure we have. It certainly wasn't the case that such abuse wasn't covered up on a large scale back then - as I know from the case of my own school.
I entirely take @Cyclefree 's point about sentencing indicating it's not taken seriously enough - and agree with her on that - but on the other hand, I'm not sure how much difference longer sentences would make, on their own. The US, for example, has both harsher sentencing and a far higher rate of incarceration than we do - but an almost identical reported prevalence of rape. (Figures for all forms of child abuse are more difficult to compare internationally, as the way different countries record it differs so much.)
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
Is this any more tiresome ramping than people posting U.K. electoral polling ?
I don’t see how it’s trolling at all.
I thought I made myself clear " the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" is patently untrue- for the moment at least.
Normally UK polls are posted on here with limited comment. We all tend to read them from different perspectives. The last thing I would like to see is another five years of Conservative Governments, and at the moment their re-election isn't looking likely. Nonetheless the election is not in the bag for Labour. The narrative could well have changed considerably by 23rd January next year. Indeed with what looks to be a very impressive budget from Hunt that has shot all of Labour's economic foxes, with Galloway's win and his crushing personal attack on Starmer and Sunak's ( what looked to be an odd stunt of a) speech on Friday is gaining traction and the dial is already moving to the Conservatives who have clawed back seven points in the latest poll in a week.
So there is much water to flow under the Bridge, and were I of a religious disposition I would be praying for a Dem win. The election is not "in the bag". We are expecting rapid swingback to the Tories here, why should that not happen too in the US?
I was with you.
But now you yourself are trolling, cherrypicking polls to suit your tiresome narrative and making spurious unsubstantiated claims about Sunny’s speech gaining traction.
The highlight however was your appraisal of Hunt’s “impressive budget” - which hasn’t even happened yet.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Not really. You could at max add 10 points to the tory total putting them around 33% and maybe subtract 5 points from labour putting them around 40%. Still a likely labour majority.
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I am sorry to disappoint @DavidL but the Angiolini Report will almost certainly be ignored.
Just as the IICSA Final Report & its recommendations were ostentatiously ignored by the government. As we know - from yet another report - the Met's behaviour in relation to child abuse is as bad as its behaviour to women.
Some recent examples:
1. On 1 March a 29 year old doctor working in a Warwickshire hospital, who had pleaded guilty to 3 counts of making indecent images of children, was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, suspended for 2 years. He was in possession of more than 50 images, over half in the most extreme category, some of children as young as 5. He also searched for such images.
February
2. A Derbyshire teacher aged 44, found guilty of two counts of rape of an under-age girl pupil he groomed while in a position of trust, was given a 1-year sentence, suspended for 2 years.
3. A 21 year old actor who downloaded 848 child abuse images, 165 in the worst category, was told this by the judge:
‘The images I have seen are sickening. Each of them is a real child being abused for the pleasure of someone like you watching. It is made worse because of the number of them – there were 848 indecent images – and it is made worse by the length of time you were doing it. You told the probation officer you do not have a sexual interest in children. I don’t accept that.’
Despite these strong words, he was given an 8 month sentence, suspended for 2 years. He had been downloading such images since he was 17.
4. A 43-year old man in Warrington convicted of 4 offences of attempting to communicate with a child, possession of child porn & extreme pornography was given an 18 months sentence, suspended for 2 years. Defence counsel argued in mitigation that: “He has perhaps had more than his fair share of problems in his life to overcome.” (This seems to have related to problems with alcohol though since he was also in full-time good employment, it is not entirely clear why these justified such a light sentence, especially as the judge commented that he was in denial about his activities, his sexual interest in children & had not truly shown remorse.) Never mind. He too left court.
5. A 39 year old Stoke man with 78 indecent images of children (described as “disgusting”) was convicted of 3 charges of making indecent images of children, possession of extreme pornography & prohibited images & given a 3-year community order because he had shown remorse despite, once again, the judge pointing out: “These are real children suffering disgraceful, horrible behaviour committed on them by adults.”
6. A 75 year old Dundee banker convicted of having thousands of child abuse images was given a suspended sentence though had his access to the internet restricted.
8. A 71 year old man in Worcester, convicted of having child abuse images for the second time was given a community order.
I could go on.
I am shocked at 2.
In 1975 our Head of Rural Science mysteriously disappeared from school. In early 1976 there was a report on ATV Today confirming he had been sentenced to 15 months in Winson Green for statutory rape. He was married, in his early thirties and had been conducting a sexual relationship with a 15 year old student for a number of months.
By today's standards the sentence was lenient, but fair play no suspended sentence, he was banged to rights, " straight to jail and do not pass go". I am shocked 50 years later we have gone backwards.
I'm not entirely sure we have. It certainly wasn't the case that such abuse wasn't covered up on a large scale back then - as I know from the case of my own school.
I entirely take @Cyclefree 's point about sentencing indicating it's not taken seriously enough - and agree with her on that - but on the other hand, I'm not sure how much difference longer sentences would make, on their own. The US, for example, has both harsher sentencing and a far higher rate of incarceration than we do - but an almost identical reported prevalence of rape. (Figures for all forms of child abuse are more difficult to compare internationally, as the way different countries record it differs so much.)
I'm not an advocate of custodial sentences at all costs, particularly for white collar crime, but example two which is very similar to my case is definitely a bang the barsteward up sort of a crime. I suppose the irony is the prescribed sentence would be higher these days than back in 1974 but because we haven't the prison capacity, barstewards who should be incarcerated are instead given suspended sentences. If my child was the victim I would be outraged at the leniency.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Not really. You could at max add 10 points to the tory total putting them around 33% and maybe subtract 5 points from labour putting them around 40%. Still a likely labour majority.
I doubt it lots of 2019 Tories voting for Starmer as they don't fear him and see him as reasonably competent would flood back to Sunak in fear of Corbyn again. The Tories would be back to 35%+ minimum
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I think it’s @WilliamGlenn who might have thrown you. It happens.
I have followed him since 2014 and seen his transformation
Not sure how long you have been on this forum and followed him
He has 47,493 posts and 29,494 visits since March 25th 2013 at 11.52pm
Indeed, I believe the Russian Federation get excellent value for their money, except when the account was operated by a Euro-Federalist interloper. I reckon that one is breaking rocks in Siberia these days.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Not really. You could at max add 10 points to the tory total putting them around 33% and maybe subtract 5 points from labour putting them around 40%. Still a likely labour majority.
I doubt it lots of 2019 Tories voting for Starmer as they don't fear him and see him as reasonably competent would flood back to Sunak in fear of Corbyn again. The Tories would be back to 35%+ minimum
Yes but huge numbers of 2019 tories are not voting for Starmer. Its more like they are going to reform or sitting on their hands.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Not really. You could at max add 10 points to the tory total putting them around 33% and maybe subtract 5 points from labour putting them around 40%. Still a likely labour majority.
I doubt it lots of 2019 Tories voting for Starmer as they don't fear him and see him as reasonably competent would flood back to Sunak in fear of Corbyn again. The Tories would be back to 35%+ minimum
Yes but huge numbers of 2019 tories are not voting for Starmer. Its more like they are going to reform or sitting on their hands.
But the point is none of these former Tory voters would be voting Labour if Corbyn was again running the show. Yes they might get some Green votes, and Galloway would be nowhere to be seen (which is good).
If all those Tories sit on their hands, Starmer wins, and a win is a win. I am not so sure they will sit on their hands come the election. Starmer is universally disliked by the right and the left, his saving grace is he remains less unpopular than Corbyn by a country mile, and, for the moment at least, Sunak.
Whatever tax cuts Hunt delivers, Rachel will keep them. She’ll find other ways to raise the cash: freezing the thresholds being one such mechanism. Don’t expect much in the way of scrutiny in that regard from the media.
She could sort out CGT for one.
But she has stupidly ruled that out already.
She is not going to go into an election committed to raising any particular tax. She would be stupid to do so, in fact, as it just gives the Tories a free hit. She can find other ways of raising the money once inside No. 11, when she has looked at the books.
And what do we think Reeves is going to find that will magically facilitate the restoration of the entire collapsing public realm, given that she has gone to pains to demonstrate her determination to leave virtually every existing major lever for raising revenue unpulled? Window Tax, or possibly Ship Money? Come off it!
There are two possibilities: Labour is telling the truth and intends to implement more austerity rather than soaking the wealthy; or Labour intends to get elected on a total raft of lies, pretend that they were too thick to understand how bad things were before they got hold of the keys to the Treasury, and rip up their manifesto at some point in the first week after winning. Either course of action is liable to destroy any miniscule residuum of public faith in politicians, albeit for slightly different reasons (either the notion that Parliament doesn't give a shit about anyone but the rich, or that MPs lie about absolutely everything, having been definitively proven.) I'm not convinced that this will improve matters.
Do you think Rachel will get into No. 11 and find well organised accounts based on sound money?
I think we all know the answer to that. And since we all know the answer to that, it would be nice to think that those who aspire to form the next Government had a somewhat better plan for resolving the rapid slide of the entire state and half the people who live in it into destitution and ruin than VAT on private school fees, blaming the other lot and a load of vague guff about reforming and legislating our way out of trouble - as if the national estate of crumbling public buildings, a healthcare system in a state of near total collapse, and the imminent bankruptcy of virtually the whole of local government, could somehow be put right without huge sums of additional money.
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
You are another of those idealists who doesn’t grasp that without the reins of power, you are nothing. You would rather Labour committed to endless new taxes and lost than was cautious and won
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
Plus in what version of PB is posting polls being tiresome.
I do not agree with @williamglenn but he is not a troll and has every right to post on here unless he does something that upsets the moderators
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
I've told you before, Euro-Federalist @williamglenn was my favourite.
Ah, no, you see, that was @WilliamGlenn, at least I think so. Review your notes and you might identify where the confusion occurred
If Corbyn led Labour now he would win the next election with a healthy majority.
Unlikely, it would probably be a hung parliament. You may as well equally have said if Hague or IDS led the Tories in 2010 they would have won on swing of the pendulum
Not really. You could at max add 10 points to the tory total putting them around 33% and maybe subtract 5 points from labour putting them around 40%. Still a likely labour majority.
I doubt it lots of 2019 Tories voting for Starmer as they don't fear him and see him as reasonably competent would flood back to Sunak in fear of Corbyn again. The Tories would be back to 35%+ minimum
Yes but huge numbers of 2019 tories are not voting for Starmer. Its more like they are going to reform or sitting on their hands.
But the point is none of these former Tory voters would be voting Labour if Corbyn was again running the show. Yes they might get some Green votes, and Galloway would be nowhere to be seen (which is good).
If all those Tories sit on their hands, Starmer wins, and a win is a win. I am not so sure they will sit on their hands come the election. Starmer is universally disliked by the right and the left, his saving grace is he remains less unpopular than Corbyn by a country mile, and, for the moment at least, Sunak.
The available polling (August 2023) says that you would need to deduct 17% from the current Labour lead in the event that Corbyn was still leading the Labour Party.
Donald J. Trump 2,781 56.4% Nikki Haley 2,032 41.2% Ron DeSantis 54 1.1% Chris Christie 31 0.6% Vivek Ramaswamy 27 0.5% Ryan Binkley 5 0.1% Total reported 4,930
SSI - Haley ahead in City of Harrisonburg (James Madison University)
Republican Primary Mark Robinson (current Lt Gov & Trump pick, if nominated and elected, first Black Gov for NC) 1,973 +38.7% Dale Folwell 1,798 35.3% Bill Graham 1,322 26.0%
Democratic Primary Josh Stein (current NC Attorney General) 5,206 +78.3% Michael Morgan 850 12.8% Chrelle Booker 293 4.4%
Polls have also closed at top of the hour in Tennessee.
Note that while the Volunteer State is divided into two time zones, polls close at same time statewide - 8pm local time in East (Knoxville) and Middle (Nashville) TN (eastern time) but 7pm local in West (Memphis) TN (central time)
In Texas early returns (8% reporting) Biden at 87% in D primary, in R primary Trump 75% versus Haley 20%
For US Senate, incumbent Ted Cruz 87% with Republicans, challenger Colin Allred 77% with Democrats
ADDENDUM - also in Lone Star State major factional battles within GOP, between TX House Speaker (moderate wackjob) versus Gov. Greg Abbot (total wackjob) versus impeached-but-not-convicted for allege official corruption TX Attorney General Ken Paxton (MAGA-mega-wackjob).
I'm also joining the UKPollingReport skeptics I'm afraid.
They have an article about Ashfield at the next election which does not even mention the 17 criminal charges Jason Zadrozny is facing in the Crown Court.
Beginning to look like Nikki Haley may be on verge of victory in Vermont.
NYT blog - Nate Cohn: Donald Trump holds a slight lead in Vermont, but the outstanding vote comes from areas that seem likely to favor Haley. It could be enough for her to win her first state.
Greater Manchester Police said the lady policeman concerned had been given refresher training, so that's all right then. It's like GMP has not even read Cyclefree's header.
Beginning to look like Nikki Haley may be on verge of victory in Vermont.
NYT blog - Nate Cohn: Donald Trump holds a slight lead in Vermont, but the outstanding vote comes from areas that seem likely to favor Haley. It could be enough for her to win her first state.
Nice to have one race that is even a little bit competitive. Haley won Washington DC (not a state) last week iirc.
Beginning to look like Nikki Haley may be on verge of victory in Vermont.
NYT blog - Nate Cohn: Donald Trump holds a slight lead in Vermont, but the outstanding vote comes from areas that seem likely to favor Haley. It could be enough for her to win her first state.
Nice to have one race that is even a little bit competitive. Haley won Washington DC (not a state) last week iirc.
And tonight in Virginia, Haley is carrying Arlington Co, Fairfax Co and City of Arlington within DC Beltway.
Also City of Charlottesville and surrounding Albemarle Co; perhaps locals did NOT appreciate Trump doing his dog-whittling for murdering Nazis on their home turf?
Republican Primary for new Alabama 2nd Congressional District > with 40% reporting
Dick Brewbaker 14,650 52.0% Caroleene Dobson 7,244 25.7% Greg Albritton 4,412 15.6% Hampton Harris 796 2.8% Belinda Thomas 374 1.3% Stacey Shepperson 266 0.9% Wallace Gilberry 246 0.9% Karla M. DuPriest 208 0.7% Total reported 28,196
> source NYT > appears former state senator Brubacker (endorsed by Michael Flynn fer fecks sake) has good chance of winning GOP nomination outright thus avoiding runoff. > His chances in November of holding the seat for the GOP as White Republican versus the Black Democratic nominee, whether Figures or Daniels, are somewhat less robust in this new Black-majority district.
As for the Democrats (source Wiki) > Shomari Figures, former deputy chief of staff and counsel to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and son of state senator Vivian Davis Figures > Anthony Daniels, minority leader of the Alabama House of Representatives (2017–present) from the 53rd district (2014–present)
For PB insomniacs, note that polls close in CALIFORNIA at top of the hour.
BIG race is for US Senate. IF opinion polling holds water, then Democratic congressman Adam Schiff will come in first. BUT it's still very open question, who will come in second and thus also make the Top Two for the general election. With battle for 2nd-place between > Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter > Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee > Republican former major league baseball star Steve Garvey
NYT - Little-known Democrat beats Biden in American Samoa.
President Biden took his first loss of the Democratic nomination race, being bested on Tuesday night in American Samoa by Jason Palmer, a relatively unknown technology entrepreneur from Maryland, according to The Associated Press.
Mr. Palmer was the only Democrat to campaign in the island territory, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. Its residents are not eligible to vote in the general election.
Mr. Palmer won four of the territory’s six Democratic delegates, which are awarded proportionally to the final vote totals. Mr. Biden won the remaining two delegates. Dean Phillips, the Minnesota congressman, was the only other Democrat who appeared on ballots, but did not win any delegates.
This isn’t the first time American Samoa has delivered a surprising result in its Democratic caucus. In 2016, a majority of caucusgoers cast ballots for uncommitted delegates rather than for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. And in 2020, Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, won there, giving him the only the victory in his campaign.
In his quixotic campaign against Mr. Biden, Mr. Palmer has emphasized his relative youth. At 52, he is the youngest Democrat in the race, and nearly 30 years Mr. Biden’s junior. Mr. Palmer has also sought to distinguish himself from the incumbent on policy: In February, he called for a cease-fire in Gaza in a video posted on X.
California US Senate Primary - Top Two advance regardless of party
with 17% reporting Adam Schiff Democrat 481,185 35.9% Steve Garvey Republican 406,679 30.3% Katie Porter Democrat 209,824 15.6% Barbara Lee Democrat 85,209 6.3% Total reported 1,341,911
SSI - Few voters counted yet from Southern Cali.
ADDENDUM - relatively few that is, except from Ventura Co (where Schiff is leading with Garvey close 2nd) and Orange Co (Garvey in lead, Schiff trailing)
My own guess is that Top Two will be Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey, with Schiff highly favored to win in November.
However, at least having a Republican in the US Senate final (unlike recent US Senate races in CA) may help some down-ballot GOPers running for Congress and the Legislature.
Yes the polls are not looking great at the moment but we have eight months to go. So there remains much to play for.
Many of us feel physically sick at the thought of a Trump Presidency, and "the Republicans look to have the Presidential election in the bag" really isn't true. If the polls remain the same come the Autumn, yes a Dictatorship will look highly likely. So for the moment at least, enough of your trolling.
Um, this is a betting site.
I have money riding on the Presidential election and I value @williamglenn sharing the data.
Astonishing this has barely got a mention here tonight.
Anyway, Biden now estimated to have 1,349 delegates of the 1,968 he needs - and he swept every state.
Having laid Michelle Obama at 8s (!) I managed to trade some out at 21s for cashflow at little cost to myself. Great.
Biden still value at 1.3 but I suspect he'll drift again due to some news story of a stumble or "he's a bit old polling" or other, so will keep under review as to when I go back in.
She should have flown out to 100/1 but she's still bizarrely at 20/1.
And yes, I did take a few quid of that - in my defence it's not because I fancy her chances but because I've just had a huge servicing bill in for my car and I need to unlock some cash.
For PB insomniacs, note that polls close in CALIFORNIA at top of the hour.
BIG race is for US Senate. IF opinion polling holds water, then Democratic congressman Adam Schiff will come in first. BUT it's still very open question, who will come in second and thus also make the Top Two for the general election. With battle for 2nd-place between > Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter > Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee > Republican former major league baseball star Steve Garvey
For the avoidance of doubt, have given you plenty likes tonight. The running commentary was much appreciated.
Haley's decision to run through Super Tue seems eminently vindicated. How many states were winner takes all ? 10% of total delegates would give her some heft at the RNC convention.
Well done to @SeaShantyIrish2 for keeping us focused on the US election - seemingly the only one who's bothered.
This is a betting site. It was founded in 2004 principally to discuss the Kerry/Bush races because there was nowhere else on the Web to discuss the polling and betting opportunities, and other discussion sites were cluttered with all sorts of irrelevant nonsense.
Well done to @SeaShantyIrish2 for keeping us focused on the US election - seemingly the only one who's bothered.
This is a betting site. It was founded in 2004 principally to discuss the Kerry/Bush races because there was nowhere else on the Web to discuss the polling and betting opportunities, and other discussion sites were cluttered with all sorts of irrelevant nonsense.
Astonishing we seem to have lost a bit of that.
Everyone's been asleep. And in any event, the only item of interest is how many. votes Haley gets. A respectable number, as it turns out.
Comments
Tomorrow we have PMQs, Galloway and the budget to listen to - or you could read a book all day
https://x.com/patrickchristys/status/1765030345303277605?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
In 1975 our Head of Rural Science mysteriously disappeared from school. In early 1976 there was a report on ATV Today confirming he had been sentenced to 15 months in Winson Green for statutory rape. He was married, in his early thirties and had been conducting a sexual relationship with a 15 year old student for a number of months.
By today's standards the sentence was lenient, but fair play no suspended sentence, he was banged to rights, " straight to jail and do not pass go". I am shocked 50 years later we have gone backwards.
Fortunely for Biden it looks like Super Tuesday will effectively almost seal Trump as their nominee. Trump has only a 4 point lead over Biden with 4 potential criminal trials facing him too over the next few months each of which could lead to jail time
Granted, I think he should probably strive for a bit more balance, because he has a tendency to only highlight good polls for Trump; but there are so many people on the other side of the fence, it's an omission I'm willing to forgive.
To show how overworked our criminal system a 5 year delay for a rape case is quite fast nowadays...
Even once it's gone out - I have to read through every single applicant no matter how obviously unfit for the job they are. Then fill in a spreadsheet row for each that ticks various boxes for why they are unfit for the job. Then email that back to HR, Then that kicks off another similar process for the people who _were_ fit for the job. Which then kicks off another...
The candidate we finally pick - I have to write a report justifying why we don't hire them at the very, very bottom of the salary scale. Which quite often delays things enough that the person has found another role. Which kicks off the entire process again.
I wrote an automation for the whole process (or at least cut 99% of if out) but which still ticked all of the tick-boxes.
Which - praise be! - is still entirely ignored several years later.
Only two new senior managers in between who have gone on to better paid things.
Indeed he is a long standing contributer to this forum
It is Parliament which sets the overall range of sentence for these crimes, the CPS just applies it. The stiffest sentences should of course be reserved for those who produce these child abuse films and images, the cases you showcased while illegal actions were mainly viewers of it
Normally UK polls are posted on here with limited comment. We all tend to read them from different perspectives. The last thing I would like to see is another five years of Conservative Governments, and at the moment their re-election isn't looking likely. Nonetheless the election is not in the bag for Labour. The narrative could well have changed considerably by 23rd January next year. Indeed with what looks to be a very impressive budget from Hunt that has shot all of Labour's economic foxes, with Galloway's win and his crushing personal attack on Starmer and Sunak's ( what looked to be an odd stunt of a) speech on Friday is gaining traction and the dial is already moving to the Conservatives who have clawed back seven points in the latest poll in a week.
So there is much water to flow under the Bridge, and were I of a religious disposition I would be praying for a Dem win. The election is not "in the bag". We are expecting rapid swingback to the Tories here, why should that not happen too in the US?
As I've been saying the GOP are mad to want Trump as their candidate because pretty much anyone other than Donald Trump could be Biden. 🤷♂️
The coming election is going to consist of one side pretending unconvincingly that everything isn't total shit whilst simultaneously claiming that the other lot would make it even worse, and the other side pretending that they can deshittify everything whilst simultaneously sticking to 99.9% of the budget set by their opponents. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
He has undergone a political journey and annoys some on here but he is not a troll
But now you yourself are trolling, cherrypicking polls to suit your tiresome narrative and making spurious unsubstantiated claims about Sunny’s speech gaining traction.
The highlight however was your appraisal of Hunt’s “impressive budget” - which hasn’t even happened yet.
Bravo.
The fanboy strikes back.
identify where the confusion occurred
I think it’s @WilliamGlenn who might have thrown you. It happens.
Polls close in Virginia in just over ten minutes.
It certainly wasn't the case that such abuse wasn't covered up on a large scale back then - as I know from the case of my own school.
I entirely take @Cyclefree 's point about sentencing indicating it's not taken seriously enough - and agree with her on that - but on the other hand, I'm not sure how much difference longer sentences would make, on their own.
The US, for example, has both harsher sentencing and a far higher rate of incarceration than we do - but an almost identical reported prevalence of rape.
(Figures for all forms of child abuse are more difficult to compare internationally, as the way different countries record it differs so much.)
Nothing is yet written in stone.
Admittedly, it's hard to think of a character less like Trump than was Michael Dukakis.
U
N
T
Not sure how long you have been on this forum and followed him
He has 47,493 posts and 29,494 visits since March 25th 2013 at 11.52pm
> presidential primaries D&R only
Polls close in North Carolina in half-hour
> presidential primaries D&R plus primaries for US House, Governor and other state races
Addendum - Polls also closing now in Vermont
> presidential primaries D&R only
If all those Tories sit on their hands, Starmer wins, and a win is a win. I am not so sure they will sit on their hands come the election. Starmer is universally disliked by the right and the left, his saving grace is he remains less unpopular than Corbyn by a country mile, and, for the moment at least, Sunak.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/08/18/what-would-be-happening-if-corbyn-was-still-lab-leader/
Donald J. Trump
2,781 56.4%
Nikki Haley
2,032 41.2%
Ron DeSantis
54 1.1%
Chris Christie
31 0.6%
Vivek Ramaswamy
27 0.5%
Ryan Binkley
5 0.1%
Total reported
4,930
SSI - Haley ahead in City of Harrisonburg (James Madison University)
Donald J. Trump
288 +56.8%
Nikki Haley
198 39.1%
Ron DeSantis
8 1.6%
Chris Christie
7 1.4%
Vivek Ramaswamy
4 0.8%
Ryan Binkley
2 0.4%
> Virginia = Biden 88.5% (with 10% reporting)
> Vermont = Biden 83% (2% reporting)
> Iowa precinct caucuses = Biden 87% (over 95% reporting)
Donald J. Trump
62,073 62.6%
Nikki Haley
34,871 +35.2%35.2
plus also rans
In addition to Harrisonburg, Haley is ahead in Charlottesville (U of Va, also site of rightwing murders ramped by Trump), Roanoke and Arlington
Addendum - Songs of the Super Tuesday states, for NC
Wagon Wheel (by Bob Dylan) - Darius Rucker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvKyBcCDOB4
Donald J. Trump
2,726 49.1%
Nikki Haley
2,598 46.8%
Haley now carrying four counties, including Durham (Durham - Duke U), Mecklinburg (Charlotte) and Orange (Chapel Hill - U of NC)
Republican Primary
Mark Robinson (current Lt Gov & Trump pick, if nominated and elected, first Black Gov for NC)
1,973 +38.7%
Dale Folwell
1,798 35.3%
Bill Graham
1,322 26.0%
Democratic Primary
Josh Stein (current NC Attorney General)
5,206 +78.3%
Michael Morgan
850 12.8%
Chrelle Booker
293 4.4%
Nikki Haley
2,713 49.1%
Donald J. Trump
2,619 47.4%
Haley now carrying about as many towns as Trump (also visa versa).
Addendum - ditto Alabama
Wildwood Flower - The Carter Family
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewnfWoSQz3o
One of THE classics of classic country music, with June Carter (Cash) playing autoharp
Oh, and AP has called VA GOP race for Trump with 66% versus 33% for Haley.
Moonlight in Vermont - sung by Frank Sinatra
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMDYd-j_Gas
(Betya didn't see THAT once coming!)
With 16% reported, Trump now leading with 51% versus Haley with 45%
Note that while the Volunteer State is divided into two time zones, polls close at same time statewide - 8pm local time in East (Knoxville) and Middle (Nashville) TN (eastern time) but 7pm local in West (Memphis) TN (central time)
For US Senate, incumbent Ted Cruz 87% with Republicans, challenger Colin Allred 77% with Democrats
ADDENDUM - also in Lone Star State major factional battles within GOP, between TX House Speaker (moderate wackjob) versus Gov. Greg Abbot (total wackjob) versus impeached-but-not-convicted for allege official corruption TX Attorney General Ken Paxton (MAGA-mega-wackjob).
Republican Primary (23% reporting)
Mark Robinson (current Lieutenant Gov)
114,657 62.4%
Dale Folwell
36,264 19.7%
Bill Graham
32,927 17.9%
Democratic Primary (22% reporting)
Josh Stein (current NC AG)
116,991 74.1%
Michael Morgan
19,851 12.6%
Chrelle Booker
8,708 5.5%
source NYT
They have an article about Ashfield at the next election which does not even mention the 17 criminal charges Jason Zadrozny is facing in the Crown Court.
https://pollingreport.uk/articles/is-lee-anderson-actually-better-off-in-ashfield-not-running-as-a-tory
NYT blog - Nate Cohn: Donald Trump holds a slight lead in Vermont, but the outstanding vote comes from areas that seem likely to favor Haley. It could be enough for her to win her first state.
But he also said that skinny suits seem to diminish PM Rishi Sunak
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26399988/keir-starmer-lose-weight-peter-mandelson/
Shades of David Cameron's mum advising Jeremy Corbyn to wear a suit.
Footage shows the incident, which homeless charity Crisis branded 'appalling and degrading'
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26377761/police-officer-drags-homeless-refugee-kicks-stomach-manchester/
Greater Manchester Police said the lady policeman concerned had been given refresher training, so that's all right then. It's like GMP has not even read Cyclefree's header.
216 Squadron has not been able to recommend any weapons for purchase or development due to lack of funds
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/raf-drone-squadron-has-conducted-no-trials-since-2020-c0hcbkr3n (£££)
Four decades of Tory defence cuts, that of course might be turned round in 12 hours.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/05/michelle-obama-confirms-she-will-not-run-for-president/ (£££)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/kimpton-fitzroy-hotel-london-lucid-dream-experience/ (£££)
Paging @Leon. One for the Knappers Gazette. Maybe psychedelics aren't needed after all.
A man has admitted setting fire to a shed belonging to Conservative MP Mike Freer – but denied it was politically motivated.
Paul Harwood, 42, was charged over a fire last Christmas Eve at the MP’s constituency office in Ballards Lane, north Finchley, north London.
The defendant, who lives in Ballards Lane, was also charged over another arson attack on a bin at the rear of a property in Long Lane, Finchley, on the same night.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/mike-freer-mp-north-finchley-fire-old-bailey-christmas-eve-ministry-of-justice-b1143349.html
We noted at the time it was odd the attack was round the back and not on the office per se.
Also City of Charlottesville and surrounding Albemarle Co; perhaps locals did NOT appreciate Trump doing his dog-whittling for murdering Nazis on their home turf?
Haley 49.3
Trump 46.8
81% counted
Nikki Haley
21,387 48.6%
Donald J. Trump
20,679 47.0%
Ron DeSantis
Total reported
43,990
> Unlike most other states, no big urban/rural split ("urban" in VT context that is) Haley versus Trump.
> Bunch of rural towns still left to report, most of rest are virtually all done counting, and collectively have but slight skew toward Trump.
> On other hand, Burlington (former mayor = Bernie Sanders) state's largest city, Haley won 70%; on other hand, not much left to count their either.
> So final statewide result is in lap o' the gods, depending on final balance between the towns scattered on both sides of the Green Mountains.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-03-05/how-could-the-senedd-reform-affect-you
Constitutional reform in Wales? A future AV thread?
> this is Alabama's 2nd Black-majority district, mandated by federal court
Democratic primary (if no candidate gets 50%+ then top two go to April 16 runoff)
Democratic Primary
Shomari Figures
9,868 38.0%
Anthony Daniels
7,501 28.9%
Napoleon Bracy
2,643 10.2%
Merika Coleman
2,087 8.0%
Phyllis Harvey-Hall
1,558 6.0%
Juandalynn Givan
884 3.4%
Jeremy Gray
531 2.0%
James Averhart
505 1.9%
Vimal Patel
173 0.7%
Larry Simpson
103 0.4%
William Lenard
97 0.4%
Total reported
25,950
> with 40% reporting
Dick Brewbaker
14,650 52.0%
Caroleene Dobson
7,244 25.7%
Greg Albritton
4,412 15.6%
Hampton Harris
796 2.8%
Belinda Thomas
374 1.3%
Stacey Shepperson
266 0.9%
Wallace Gilberry
246 0.9%
Karla M. DuPriest
208 0.7%
Total reported
28,196
> source NYT
> appears former state senator Brubacker (endorsed by Michael Flynn fer fecks sake) has good chance of winning GOP nomination outright thus avoiding runoff.
> His chances in November of holding the seat for the GOP as White Republican versus the Black Democratic nominee, whether Figures or Daniels, are somewhat less robust in this new Black-majority district.
As for the Democrats (source Wiki)
> Shomari Figures, former deputy chief of staff and counsel to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and son of state senator Vivian Davis Figures
> Anthony Daniels, minority leader of the Alabama House of Representatives (2017–present) from the 53rd district (2014–present)
BIG race is for US Senate. IF opinion polling holds water, then Democratic congressman Adam Schiff will come in first. BUT it's still very open question, who will come in second and thus also make the Top Two for the general election. With battle for 2nd-place between
> Democratic congresswoman Katie Porter
> Democratic congresswoman Barbara Lee
> Republican former major league baseball star Steve Garvey
NYT - Little-known Democrat beats Biden in American Samoa.
President Biden took his first loss of the Democratic nomination race, being bested on Tuesday night in American Samoa by Jason Palmer, a relatively unknown technology entrepreneur from Maryland, according to The Associated Press.
Mr. Palmer was the only Democrat to campaign in the island territory, about 2,500 miles southwest of Hawaii. Its residents are not eligible to vote in the general election.
Mr. Palmer won four of the territory’s six Democratic delegates, which are awarded proportionally to the final vote totals. Mr. Biden won the remaining two delegates. Dean Phillips, the Minnesota congressman, was the only other Democrat who appeared on ballots, but did not win any delegates.
This isn’t the first time American Samoa has delivered a surprising result in its Democratic caucus. In 2016, a majority of caucusgoers cast ballots for uncommitted delegates rather than for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. And in 2020, Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, won there, giving him the only the victory in his campaign.
In his quixotic campaign against Mr. Biden, Mr. Palmer has emphasized his relative youth. At 52, he is the youngest Democrat in the race, and nearly 30 years Mr. Biden’s junior. Mr. Palmer has also sought to distinguish himself from the incumbent on policy: In February, he called for a cease-fire in Gaza in a video posted on X.
SSI - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson would be so proud!
Haley 50.4
Trump 45.6
89% counted
Nikki Haley
34,215 50.0%
No delegates—
Donald J. Trump
31,274 45.7%
Ron DeSantis
1,103 1.6%
SSI - in bygone days THE most Republican state in the USA, Vermont does what it can, to save the soul of the once Grand Old Party.
with 17% reporting
Adam Schiff
Democrat 481,185 35.9%
Steve Garvey
Republican 406,679 30.3%
Katie Porter
Democrat 209,824 15.6%
Barbara Lee
Democrat 85,209 6.3%
Total reported
1,341,911
SSI - Few voters counted yet from Southern Cali.
ADDENDUM - relatively few that is, except from Ventura Co (where Schiff is leading with Garvey close 2nd) and Orange Co (Garvey in lead, Schiff trailing)
My own guess is that Top Two will be Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey, with Schiff highly favored to win in November.
However, at least having a Republican in the US Senate final (unlike recent US Senate races in CA) may help some down-ballot GOPers running for Congress and the Legislature.
I have money riding on the Presidential election and I value @williamglenn sharing the data.
Channel 4 9pm
First in a four-part series on our greatest prime minister to have been sandwiched between two women.
Anyway, Biden now estimated to have 1,349 delegates of the 1,968 he needs - and he swept every state.
Having laid Michelle Obama at 8s (!) I managed to trade some out at 21s for cashflow at little cost to myself. Great.
Biden still value at 1.3 but I suspect he'll drift again due to some news story of a stumble or "he's a bit old polling" or other, so will keep under review as to when I go back in.
(As did several others.)
She should have flown out to 100/1 but she's still bizarrely at 20/1.
And yes, I did take a few quid of that - in my defence it's not because I fancy her chances but because I've just had a huge servicing bill in for my car and I need to unlock some cash.
Haley's decision to run through Super Tue seems eminently vindicated. How many states were winner takes all ?
10% of total delegates would give her some heft at the RNC convention.
This is a betting site. It was founded in 2004 principally to discuss the Kerry/Bush races because there was nowhere else on the Web to discuss the polling and betting opportunities, and other discussion sites were cluttered with all sorts of irrelevant nonsense.
Astonishing we seem to have lost a bit of that.
And in any event, the only item of interest is how many. votes Haley gets. A respectable number, as it turns out.
Trump will be smarting.