politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

How Betfair has reacted to the second round – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,126
edited September 29 in General
imageHow Betfair has reacted to the second round – politicalbetting.com

My logic is most of Mel Stride’s support will go to Tugendhat and Cleverly which could put Badenoch out in the next round (which could happen if Stride’s supports splits evenly between Cleverly and Tugendhat).

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    First again, twice in 2 days
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,773
    edited September 11
    Second! Like Trumpy
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 426
    Can't fault your logic. So it's lay Badenoch then.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Good to see Kemi going up.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,577
    No odds for Harris or Trump? :lol:
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,134
    edited September 11
    People were saying yesterday that you need 45 votes to go through but isn't it 40? (assuming Richi continues not to vote)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,980
    It's going to be Badenoch v Jenrick isn't it?

    That one actually might be competitive with the members. The baseline is Badenoch will edge it but I'm not sure if conference/stump speeches don't pan-out.

    Even Rishi ran Truss closer than expected in 2022.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    talking about manatees they are extraordinary (imo) in having no natural predators.

    Seems bonkers but there it is, no natural predators - no great whites, bull sharks, killer whales, you name it. Don't predate the manatee.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,577
    TOPPING said:

    talking about manatees they are extraordinary (imo) in having no natural predators.

    Seems bonkers but there it is, no natural predators - no great whites, bull sharks, killer whales, you name it. Don't predate the manatee.

    Are they vegan??
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,306
    Badenoch needs to position herself as the stop Jenrick candidate to centrist MPs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Andy_JS said:

    People were saying yesterday that you need 45 votes to go through but isn't it 40? (assuming Richi continues not to vote)

    Yes, there’s 121 Tory MPs, so 40 gets you into the final if Sunak continues to abstain.
  • mercatormercator Posts: 815
    TOPPING said:

    talking about manatees they are extraordinary (imo) in having no natural predators.

    Seems bonkers but there it is, no natural predators - no great whites, bull sharks, killer whales, you name it. Don't predate the manatee.

    They also hang out with some quite big alligators in the Florida springs
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    edited September 11
    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    JENRICK
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Some things transcend party politics.

    https://x.com/alx/status/1833856702577271048

    Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, JD Vance, Chuck Schumer and Michael Bloomberg at Ground Zero this morning on the anniversary of 9/11
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    On topic, this was my hot take yesterday on seeing the numbers. I suspect there will be a Stop Badenoch dynamic, implicit or explicit and this will upend her. That said, nobody is able to explain her appeal, so perhaps it should come as no surprise? She was a cowardly minister who achieved nothing, and spent much of her time ranting about trivial culture war issues.

    We'll see.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,871
    NickyBreakspear said:

    YouGov have released a MRP for the US

    https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50489-yougov-first-mrp-estimates-of-the-2024-presidential-election

    This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.

    We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.

    State Harris Trump Other MoE Number polled

    Texas 46 51 3 ±2.7 6,899
    Florida 46 52 2 ±2 7,726
    Maine's 2nd District 47 50 3 ±3 266
    Arizona 48 49 3 ±2.3 2,625
    North Carolina 48 50 2 ±1.8 3,157
    Georgia 49 49 2 ±2.4 2,957
    Pennsylvania 49 48 3 ±1.8 4,858
    Nebraska's 2nd District 50 49 1 ±3.1 196
    Wisconsin 51 47 2 ±1.7 2,003
    Nevada 51 47 3 ±3.5 1,158
    Michigan 51 46 3 ±2.6 3,075
    Minnesota 52 45 3 ±1.9 1,782

    Seems believably tight :smile:

    There are two in there I would be slightly sceptical of.

    Firstly, I'm not sure I believe Harris is four points ahead in Nevada. I think that is probably the single most likely state to flip in the US, given its proximity to the border, and the midterm results.

    Secondly, while I think the Arizona underlyings are probably right (or even understate Trump slightly), I think he will suffer from two factors. Firstly, the presence of Lake as the Senatorial candidate is not going to encourage moderate Republicans to trek to the polls (which would have almost certainly gifted Trump a couple of extra percent). Secondly, the abortion referendum there - if other states are a guide - is likely to motivate young people and women to go the polls. That's not great news for Trump there either. Without the referendum or Lake, I think Trump would have won Arizona comfortably. As it is, I would make Harris the narrow favourite.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    MaxPB said:

    I've just watched highlights of the debate and I don't understand how anyone would vote for Trump. He's deranged and clearly losing his marbles just in a different way to Biden. In 2016 this wasn't the case and you can really tell that 8 years on his age is starting to tell and the cognitive decline is well under way.

    I simply cannot see Trump winning in any circumstances

    I would say I have no idea how Harris will govern, but not being Trump is enough just as not being conservative was in July
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    NickyBreakspear said:

    YouGov have released a MRP for the US

    https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50489-yougov-first-mrp-estimates-of-the-2024-presidential-election

    This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.

    We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.

    State Harris Trump Other MoE Number polled

    Texas 46 51 3 ±2.7 6,899
    Florida 46 52 2 ±2 7,726
    Maine's 2nd District 47 50 3 ±3 266
    Arizona 48 49 3 ±2.3 2,625
    North Carolina 48 50 2 ±1.8 3,157
    Georgia 49 49 2 ±2.4 2,957
    Pennsylvania 49 48 3 ±1.8 4,858
    Nebraska's 2nd District 50 49 1 ±3.1 196
    Wisconsin 51 47 2 ±1.7 2,003
    Nevada 51 47 3 ±3.5 1,158
    Michigan 51 46 3 ±2.6 3,075
    Minnesota 52 45 3 ±1.9 1,782

    FWIW (not much) if you give Trump the tie in GA, the forced no Toss-Ups has Kamala winning with 275 ECVs (by my quick maths).
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    MaxPB said:

    I've just watched highlights of the debate and I don't understand how anyone would vote for Trump. He's deranged and clearly losing his marbles just in a different way to Biden. In 2016 this wasn't the case and you can really tell that 8 years on his age is starting to tell and the cognitive decline is well under way.

    Yes, this was the scary thing about last night – how weird and quite obviously bonkers he is. The fact that he could be Potus is terrifying: he is clinically insane, probably senile, and needs help.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    edited September 11
    FPT:

    Jon Stewart’s utter evisceration of a half-empty Congressional Committee, when talking about the 9/11 first responders and their treatment by the Federal government.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpDC3SRpM
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    edited September 11
    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,871
    TOPPING said:

    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.

    Sushi dog uses the hair clippings in their food?
  • mercatormercator Posts: 815
    TOPPING said:

    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.

    Haitian influx.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    JENRICK

    Can you stop with the repetitive one word posts.

    The spam trap is getting itchy.

    First few times it might have been amusing, for the three hundred thousandth time, less so.
    Is the spam trap an algorithm – or a human operator?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,423
    edited September 11
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement

    Means testing is precisely what she did announce. Not much she can do about the reams of nonsense being pumped out on social media.

    I don't think it's a mistake. They will have been hyper aware of the histrionics that accompany any change to pensioner benefits and taxation - these people spend all day on Facebook and the comments section of "West Midlands Live". Frankly, I would rip the plaster off and dump everything into this budget - roll NICs into income tax, abolish triple lock, social care reform, inheritance tax etc etc.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,871
    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    mercator said:

    TOPPING said:

    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.

    Haitian influx.
    A Hatian haircut sounds like one of the nastier punishments doled out by the Tonton Macoute.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    edited September 11
    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,306
    mercator said:

    TOPPING said:

    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.

    Haitian influx.
    Cashless not catless.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    edited September 11
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE

    I have to relate the following two observations today.

    1) I had a haircut and the barber is a cash only establishment (and no it's not on St. James's; and

    2) I walked past Sushi Dog which had a large notice in the window proclaiming they were "cashless".

    I think we all know what that means.

    Sushi dog uses the hair clippings in their food?
    There was a decent enough distance between the two.

    I bloody love Sushi Dogs, that said.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,297
    Anabobazina said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    JENRICK

    Can you stop with the repetitive one word posts.

    The spam trap is getting itchy.

    First few times it might have been amusing, for the three hundred thousandth time, less so.
    Is the spam trap an algorithm – or a human operator?
    Algorithm.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    JENRICK

    Can you stop with the repetitive one word posts.

    The spam trap is getting itchy.

    First few times it might have been amusing, for the three hundred thousandth time, less so.
    Is the spam trap an algorithm – or a human operator?
    Algorithm.
    Thank you for the warning. I shall tread carefully.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    Casino_Royale said:

    It's going to be Badenoch v Jenrick isn't it?

    That one actually might be competitive with the members. The baseline is Badenoch will edge it but I'm not sure if conference/stump speeches don't pan-out.

    Even Rishi ran Truss closer than expected in 2022.

    I really don't think it is. I can't see many Stride/Tugendhat/Cleverly votes switching to Jenrick/Badenoch. So my view is it's likely to be one from Jenrick/Badenoch against one from Cleverly/Tugendhat.

    I reckon 80% chance of Jenrick/Cleverly, 15% chance of Jenrick/Tugendhat, 5% chance of Badenoch against someone.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    Thatch, I assume, not TRUSS?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,595
    edited September 11
    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    If you mean Thatch I thought she was a Methodist rather than CoE? Lots of that in Lincolnshire (Wesleys etc).

    Truss certainly had faith in something, but I'm not sure it was anything to do with religion.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    Anabobazina said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    JENRICK

    Can you stop with the repetitive one word posts.

    The spam trap is getting itchy.

    First few times it might have been amusing, for the three hundred thousandth time, less so.
    Is the spam trap an algorithm – or a human operator?
    Algorithm.
    Thank you for the warning. I shall tread carefully.
    How are you making these posts anyway? Vanilla always tells me the body of the post is too short...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Anabobazina said:

    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    Thatch, I assume, not TRUSS?
    Thatch. But a truckload of Cons in any case. They just believe. It's weird.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    MaxPB said:

    I've just watched highlights of the debate and I don't understand how anyone would vote for Trump. He's deranged and clearly losing his marbles just in a different way to Biden. In 2016 this wasn't the case and you can really tell that 8 years on his age is starting to tell and the cognitive decline is well under way.

    The media was all over Biden's cognitive decline. Today there is an attempt at justification for Trump's bananas utterings. Take the Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats nonsense. If Biden had suggested that, the white coats would be flapping, but the talking heads discussions are taking it seriously.

    The NYT is fact checking Harris, it sometimes concludes she has embellished reality. This is taken on a parity with Trump speaking absolute and utter fiction with no basis in fact.

    Despite the madness and the improved economic statistics, the reality of lived lives over the last three and a half years will do for Harris. The fact Biden has been clearing up Trump excrement counts for nought. Blue collar Pennsylvanians believe they were better off under Trump.

    But why are we surprised? You would all vote for Boris Johnson again given the opportunity.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Flatlander said:

    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    If you mean Thatch I thought she was a Methodist rather than CoE? Lots of that in Lincolnshire (Wesleys etc).

    Truss certainly had faith in something, but I'm not sure it was anything to do with religion.
    yes Fatch. Sorry anabob edited as I was replying and vanilla did its magic.

    Are there a lot of methodists in Lincs? No idea which flavour of divine being they support but presumably there still is one and it's still weird.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    TOPPING said:

    talking about manatees they are extraordinary (imo) in having no natural predators.

    Seems bonkers but there it is, no natural predators - no great whites, bull sharks, killer whales, you name it. Don't predate the manatee.

    Are they vegan??
    Yes. They adore lettuce as a treat (albeit an exotic one).

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/16/us/florida-starving-manatee-feeding-program-trnd-scn/index.html

    On the lack of predators - I do wonder about an evolutionary timescale, and wehther some now extinct predator used to dine on them. And that of course omits Homo sapiens.

    However things like saltwater crocodiles do like to dine on juvenile dugongs if the occasion arises.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,283
    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    edited September 11
    Bit of unfortunate date trivia for you: today, 9/11, is the national day of Catalonia. Their trade delegation is hosting a reception at Lincoln’s Inn. Didn’t clock when I got the invitation.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Or vocal about their decision to switch faiths.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
    Yes, I think she was genuinely quite devout.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,534
    Many thanks to PB's Trump-Fluffers for their hillarious takes on the Harris-Trump debate!
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,283
    Mexicanpete said:

    MaxPB said:

    I've just watched highlights of the debate and I don't understand how anyone would vote for Trump. He's deranged and clearly losing his marbles just in a different way to Biden. In 2016 this wasn't the case and you can really tell that 8 years on his age is starting to tell and the cognitive decline is well under way.

    The media was all over Biden's cognitive decline. Today there is an attempt at justification for Trump's bananas utterings. Take the Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats nonsense. If Biden had suggested that, the white coats would be flapping, but the talking heads discussions are taking it seriously.

    The NYT is fact checking Harris, it sometimes concludes she has embellished reality. This is taken on a parity with Trump speaking absolute and utter fiction with no basis in fact.

    Despite the madness and the improved economic statistics, the reality of lived lives over the last three and a half years will do for Harris. The fact Biden has been clearing up Trump excrement counts for nought. Blue collar Pennsylvanians believe they were better off under Trump.

    But why are we surprised? You would all vote for Boris Johnson again given the opportunity.
    If the alternative were Trump? Absolutely.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    edited September 11
    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    Seriously: what Scot of a certain age could forget the Sermon on the Mound to the assembled Presbyterians of the (formerly official, somewhat and variously split and remerged) Church of Scotland?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mound
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,283
    TimS said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
    Yes, I think she was genuinely quite devout.
    If I said “Wesleyan Methodist of the most bigoted and persecuting type” would anyone get the reference?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,595
    edited September 11
    TOPPING said:

    Flatlander said:

    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    If you mean Thatch I thought she was a Methodist rather than CoE? Lots of that in Lincolnshire (Wesleys etc).

    Truss certainly had faith in something, but I'm not sure it was anything to do with religion.
    yes Fatch. Sorry anabob edited as I was replying and vanilla did its magic.

    Are there a lot of methodists in Lincs? No idea which flavour of divine being they support but presumably there still is one and it's still weird.
    I don't know about lots but the Methodists have their roots there.
    https://epwortholdrectory.org.uk/

    Some of the locals weren't too keen on odd religious types so many left for the US (including on the Mayflower), so there are quite a few visitors from across the pond doing tours of Pilgrim sites.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,762
    edited September 11
    I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,534
    rcs1000 said:

    NickyBreakspear said:

    YouGov have released a MRP for the US

    https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50489-yougov-first-mrp-estimates-of-the-2024-presidential-election

    This is the first release of our model estimating 2024 presidential election votes in every state, based upon nearly 100,000 recent interviews of registered voters. We show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 50% to 47% just before their first debate. However, the race will be determined by who wins the most electoral votes, not popular votes, and, as it currently stands, the race is a toss-up.

    We have Harris leading in 22 states and Washington D.C. with 256 electoral votes and Trump leading in 25 states with 235 electoral vote.

    State Harris Trump Other MoE Number polled

    Texas 46 51 3 ±2.7 6,899
    Florida 46 52 2 ±2 7,726
    Maine's 2nd District 47 50 3 ±3 266
    Arizona 48 49 3 ±2.3 2,625
    North Carolina 48 50 2 ±1.8 3,157
    Georgia 49 49 2 ±2.4 2,957
    Pennsylvania 49 48 3 ±1.8 4,858
    Nebraska's 2nd District 50 49 1 ±3.1 196
    Wisconsin 51 47 2 ±1.7 2,003
    Nevada 51 47 3 ±3.5 1,158
    Michigan 51 46 3 ±2.6 3,075
    Minnesota 52 45 3 ±1.9 1,782

    Seems believably tight :smile:

    There are two in there I would be slightly sceptical of.

    Firstly, I'm not sure I believe Harris is four points ahead in Nevada. I think that is probably the single most likely state to flip in the US, given its proximity to the border, and the midterm results.

    Secondly, while I think the Arizona underlyings are probably right (or even understate Trump slightly), I think he will suffer from two factors. Firstly, the presence of Lake as the Senatorial candidate is not going to encourage moderate Republicans to trek to the polls (which would have almost certainly gifted Trump a couple of extra percent). Secondly, the abortion referendum there - if other states are a guide - is likely to motivate young people and women to go the polls. That's not great news for Trump there either. Without the referendum or Lake, I think Trump would have won Arizona comfortably. As it is, I would make Harris the narrow favourite.
    Re: "proximity" of Nevada to Mexican border, it's about same distance from Henderson south of Las Vegas to Mexico, as from London to Durham in England.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
    Methodist by upbringing and instinct, she converted to Anglicanism later in life.

    https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2015/07/22/god-and-mrs-thatcher

    (The Co-Op as a threat to small shopkeepers thing hadn't occurred to me before... how times change.)
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,955
    FPT: First, the standard advice on North American bears: If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lay down. And pretend to be dead.) If it's white, say good night.

    And if it is a mother bear with one or more cubs, retreat slowly and cautiously.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,955
    FPT: In parts of the US, coyotes help control feral cats. (Members of the Audubon Society probably approve, though they may not say so, openly.)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Stuartinromford said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
    Methodist by upbringing and instinct, she converted to Anglicanism later in life.

    https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2015/07/22/god-and-mrs-thatcher

    (The Co-Op as a threat to small shopkeepers thing hadn't occurred to me before... how times change.)
    Very interesting point. On the other hand, the Co-op arose precisely because of the problem of depending on small shopkeepers in an isolated village - or worse still a truck shop. It was very strong in the mining and industrial villages of Lothian right into the late C20 - I had to quote my gran's dividend number every tine I did an errand as a small child, and Mrs C still has her membership book.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,955
    FPT: Were I Elon Musk, I would not provoke Travis Kelce, Taylor Swift's boyfriend. He's a superb athlete -- and very large: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kelce
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,534
    Jim_Miller said:

    FPT: First, the standard advice on North American bears: If it's black, fight back. If it's brown, lay down. And pretend to be dead.) If it's white, say good night.

    And if it is a mother bear with one or more cubs, retreat slowly and cautiously.

    Contrary to what PB's quasi-resident Parapathetic Traveller fondly believes, bears most definitely ARE present throughout rural British Columbia, and indeed in exurban-to-suburban sections of the Lower Mainland AND the Okanagan Valley.

    So heed Jim Miller's sage advice!
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162
    numbertwelve said:

    I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.

    Might as well get it done now and out of the way.

    If they are going to do it, of course.

    Suspect they are floating this to see the reaction and they may just tweak it to an 20% discount or not go the whole way, or just for new households.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    Taz said:

    numbertwelve said:

    I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.

    Might as well get it done now and out of the way.

    If they are going to do it, of course.

    Suspect they are floating this to see the reaction and they may just tweak it to an 20% discount or not go the whole way, or just for new households.
    How can the not see the poll tax comparison? Just toxic.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,583
    It's that time of day when we offer up Telegraph headlines as full stories - today I offer you "Gang of wild otters mauls jogger" and "Self aware fish checks itself out in mirror before picking fight".

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/11/bluestreak-cleaner-wrasse-fish-awareness-body-osaka-japan/

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/11/wild-otters-maul-jogger-harun-tanjung-aru-malaysia/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    Taz said:

    numbertwelve said:

    I have seen that Labour have again apparently refused to rule out scrapping the single person discount for Council Tax. This is going to make the WFA furore sound rather quaint, if they do this on top.

    Might as well get it done now and out of the way.

    If they are going to do it, of course.

    Suspect they are floating this to see the reaction and they may just tweak it to an 20% discount or not go the whole way, or just for new households.
    Nah.

    What they should do is make Council tax payable by each and every person in the property.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    edited September 11
    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,205
    "Speaking as someone who is sick to death of the wall-to-wall news coverage of who Taylor Swift is dating, I would pay good money to watch Travis Kelce beat the shit out of Elon Musk."

    https://x.com/Brian_KA/status/1833861608314946016
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 542
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    People were saying yesterday that you need 45 votes to go through but isn't it 40? (assuming Richi continues not to vote)

    Yes, there’s 121 Tory MPs, so 40 gets you into the final if Sunak continues to abstain.
    I think what that poster meant yesterday was that the winner is likely to get at least 45. It is pretty impossible for it to be 40 40 40. 38 should do it. Imagine it didn't- something like 43 39 38. That's what they meant.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,955
    From many previous threads: For some insight on pro-life thinking, let me recommend Nat Hentoff's "The Awful Privacy of Baby Doe". https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1985/01/the-awful-privacy-of-baby-doe/666190/

    Briefly, a baby was born with Down's syndrome in Indiana. As sometimes happens with that syndrome, the baby was unable to feed normally. A simple operation could have fixed the problem, but the parents refused to have it done. At least one pro-life couple with a Downs sydrome child of their own, offered to adopt the baby. The parents refused that, too, and the baby was allowed to starve to death.

    Nat Hentoff was a pro-life "Jewish atheist", who, before he became openly pro-life, was best known for his strong civil liberties positions, and his coverage of jazz. (I have one of his books, which has the wonderful title: "Free Speech for Me-- But Not for Thee".)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,306
    https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/1833860225020948859

    #New General Election poll

    🔴 Trump 45%
    🔵 Harris 45%

    Last poll - 🔵 Harris +2

    Economist #B - 1462 RV - 9/10
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,577
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anabobazina said:

    JENRICK

    Can you stop with the repetitive one word posts.

    The spam trap is getting itchy.

    First few times it might have been amusing, for the three hundred thousandth time, less so.
    K
    E
    M
    I
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 4,595
    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    It has the air of another policy floated around with no intention of actually implementing it.

    There's something coming which could in theory be pre-mitigated, isn't there? Aside from leaving the country.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,700
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement

    How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?

    I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,700
    edited September 11
    ..
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    edited September 11
    Dura_Ace said:

    kjh said:

    @hyufd I was in your part of the world on Friday. On my trip to our Southwold house I popped into a place near Epping that sells replica Cobras and GT40s. Thought I had been to Epping in the dim and distant past, but I had no recollection.

    @Dura_Ace will be lived I am looking at them. He has filled a quarry with Panthers to ensure I don't buy one of them. He now has to move onto Cobras. I would love a GT40 but realistically you can't take it to the pub.

    Sorry for the delayed response. I had to wait for a new keyboard from Amazon as I smashed mine in a fit of rage.

    So, let's get started.

    FUCKING WHY?

    Cobra replicas are inauthentic, ubiquitous and terrible cars made by depressed men in sheds from eclectic combinations of Jaguar bits and various antique V8s with the 298ci Rover V8 being the absolute nadir. The end result is invariably a shoddy and dangerous abomination that will leave you stranded on the side of the road with the inevitable over-heating (every single one of them runs hot, get proficient at gutting thermostats) or kill you in an uncommanded spin.

    They are not even that cheap any more.

    If you want open air thrills then get this.

    https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202306198690098

    It's got the S54 which is one of the best engines ever built. It's fast but won't kill you in a moment of inattention and you can get parts/repairs for it quite easily. This one needs a paint correction, new headlights and the interior's a bit tired but it's a good buy. You'd get it for 11 bags of sand with hard bargaining.
    From previous previous thread and in answer to @Dura_Ace:

    Sorry to have missed your delayed reply @Dura_Ace, also apologies to spelling pedants for not being able to spell livid.

    The reason why is:

    a) I really enjoy your replies
    b) The noise. They sound lovely (If I ever buy one I won't buy one with a Rover engine, it will be a Ford or Chevy, but that also means I might die quicker)
    c) The looks

    You have to understand the reason for buying a Cobra, GT40 or Panther is not for the pleasure in driving it but for the reaction of others which is usually WTF is that? I could always go for a Panther DeVille, but I would be concerned you might have an aneurysm. I saw one for sale the other day.

    You will be relieved to know most of my time is spent looking and not buying.

    PS what you posted has gone. What was it?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,076
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
    Doesn't really help the single person in sheltered accommodation which may be band D for stupid reasons - thinking of a block near us...
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,210
    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement

    How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?

    I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
    Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
    Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,946
    edited September 11
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.

    Coincidence?

    You decide ...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,306
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    They're already as unpopular as Boris at the height of partygate.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,700
    Carnyx said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    Fysics_Teacher said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I thought Thatcher was Methodist?
    Methodist by upbringing and instinct, she converted to Anglicanism later in life.

    https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2015/07/22/god-and-mrs-thatcher

    (The Co-Op as a threat to small shopkeepers thing hadn't occurred to me before... how times change.)
    Very interesting point. On the other hand, the Co-op arose precisely because of the problem of depending on small shopkeepers in an isolated village - or worse still a truck shop. It was very strong in the mining and industrial villages of Lothian right into the late C20 - I had to quote my gran's dividend number every tine I did an errand as a small child, and Mrs C still has her membership book.
    The Co-op still has 5 million members, and a part of sales goes to local charities if members scan their cards.

    It's quite substantial - £138m since 2016, by this number:

    https://www.coop.co.uk/communities
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
    Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
    Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,534
    Jim_Miller said:

    FPT: In parts of the US, coyotes help control feral cats. (Members of the Audubon Society probably approve, though they may not say so, openly.)

    NOT just feral cats, also unlucky house cats have also gotten et by coyotes, here in the wilds of north Seattle, within blocks of my humble abode.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,700
    JohnLilburne said:

    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement

    How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?

    I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
    Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
    So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    Fishing said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.

    Coincidence?

    You decide ...
    I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Fishing said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.

    Coincidence?

    You decide ...
    I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
    They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.

    There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.

    They need to smile a bit more.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,076
    MattW said:

    JohnLilburne said:

    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I remain completely disinterested in this race and whoever wins they will have a mountain to climb

    However, Labour have made a political mistake over WFA and it was unnecessary

    Apparently Reeves is looking at pension tax relief and reducing it to a flat 20%, and also restricting the cash amount able to be withdrawn to £100,000, would in this one measure raise 15-20 billion

    Reeves could, and maybe should, have announced means testing of the WFA at the same time and argued that next years pension increase will be more than £300 that would be lost in November 25 thereby avoiding the furore that has accompanied the announcement

    How does restricting the cash amount to be withdrawn generate income, if at all?

    I can see that that will be a long-term increase in revenue (higher annuity from more still in the fund -> more annual taxes), but that does not seem to generate an immediate benefit.
    Because up to 25% of the fund can be withdrawn tax-free
    So the extra tax generated is out of the income from the annuity purchase over the lifetime of the pensioner.
    Except they will have changed a fundamental benefit of retirement and a lot of NHS consultants would be looking at immediate retirement.

    Even as a flag to scare people it's a crap plan.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,871
    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    Mrs Thatcher was certainly a believer.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,720
    williamglenn said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    They're already as unpopular as Boris at the height of partygate.
    The “good news” is this shows the electorate remains very far from the hyper-partisan, quasi-civil-warring blocs that characterise American democracy.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,488
    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    carnforth said:

    32% of all dwellings are entitled to the discount. So it would raise about 8%, give or take. About £3bn. Numbers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603e0c208fa8f577cb88feee/Local_Authority_Council_Tax_base_England_2020_-_Statistical_Release_REVISED.pdf

    And most of those 32% will be people less able to afford the loss of discount, 34% of private renters and 43% of social renters are in single person households...hardly broad shoulders
    Remove the discount for bands C upwards, or something similar.
    Then you'd need another discount for oldies who didn't downsize, and by the time you've done all that it's little different from chopping the discount to 20% or putting it up by 5% for everyone.
    Shouldn’t policy be encouraging (strongly) oldies to downsize?
    Well yes, but political acceptability is the topic...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,871
    TOPPING said:

    Anabobazina said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    I don't think Cleverly has much of a chance (much is the shame, he's a decent guy and the best candidate). But, were he to lead the party, it would be – I think – the first time both main party leaders were atheists. I dare say @HYUFD and other political historians will verify?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/01/james-cleverly-tory-mp-braintree-marijuana-online-porn

    I suspect that - through history - there are many people who have been quiet about their lack of faith.
    Oh indeed. I suppose I should have said main party leaders who are both explicitly atheistic. Boris is an atheistic but claimed to be religious from time to time. I doubt the likes of Thatch and TRUSS were particularly religious either.
    I would think the opposite. That she was a woman driven by faith.

    I would really like to think that she was too sensible to be a believer but she did come from that time/caste which holds the CoE and its beliefs as very important.
    She was brought up in a devout Methodist household, so I suspect that her true inclinations ran that way.
  • mercatormercator Posts: 815
    Mexicanpete said:

    MaxPB said:

    I've just watched highlights of the debate and I don't understand how anyone would vote for Trump. He's deranged and clearly losing his marbles just in a different way to Biden. In 2016 this wasn't the case and you can really tell that 8 years on his age is starting to tell and the cognitive decline is well under way.

    The media was all over Biden's cognitive decline. Today there is an attempt at justification for Trump's bananas utterings. Take the Haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats nonsense. If Biden had suggested that, the white coats would be flapping, but the talking heads discussions are taking it seriously.

    The NYT is fact checking Harris, it sometimes concludes she has embellished reality. This is taken on a parity with Trump speaking absolute and utter fiction with no basis in fact.

    Despite the madness and the improved economic statistics, the reality of lived lives over the last three and a half years will do for Harris. The fact Biden has been clearing up Trump excrement counts for nought. Blue collar Pennsylvanians believe they were better off under Trump.

    But why are we surprised? You would all vote for Boris Johnson again given the opportunity.
    The US electorate does not consist of UK centrist dads, so the UKCD take on Trump is not predictive of anything.

    Second and equally obvious point, most of the irritation with the palpably senile Biden was inspired by hatred of *Trump* and the desire for Biden to take himself out of the picture and let Harris do what she did last night. To defend Biden was to enable Trump.

    Thirdly it is legitimate to consider the effects of Trump's utterances without thereby endorsing them, just as it is legitimate to study Mein Kampf. Trump is in some sense nuts and getting worse, but he is a long way from senile. The cat eating claim is batshit, but that is not the point. The point is, will it be believable to, and influence, people who are themselves batshit enough to even consider voting for Trump? And it might.

    Not that any of this matters. Most things don't. It's less than two months since Trump was nearly assassinated. At the time this was claimed to be epoch making, now you had probably forgotten about it till I reminded you. This time next week the debate will be invisible in the rearview mirror. The election remains too close to call.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,473
    Jim_Miller said:

    From many previous threads: For some insight on pro-life thinking, let me recommend Nat Hentoff's "The Awful Privacy of Baby Doe". https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1985/01/the-awful-privacy-of-baby-doe/666190/

    Briefly, a baby was born with Down's syndrome in Indiana. As sometimes happens with that syndrome, the baby was unable to feed normally. A simple operation could have fixed the problem, but the parents refused to have it done. At least one pro-life couple with a Downs sydrome child of their own, offered to adopt the baby. The parents refused that, too, and the baby was allowed to starve to death.

    Nat Hentoff was a pro-life "Jewish atheist", who, before he became openly pro-life, was best known for his strong civil liberties positions, and his coverage of jazz. (I have one of his books, which has the wonderful title: "Free Speech for Me-- But Not for Thee".)

    That case was some decades ago.

    I don't know what the law is in the USA on treatment or withholding of treatment but in the UK there is not absolute authority for parents. They can be overruled by staff and courts if thought to not be acting in the child's best interests. Usually this makes the news when the parents want treatment that the staff and courts think will only bring needless suffering.

    Deciding how much intervention is appropriate for severely handicapped neonates is a medical and ethical minefield
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,749
    TimS said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Fishing said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    19% approve of government

    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1833879500435677512?t=lFOqL2WqdJNpIVE0NLUCkA&s=19

    At a guess, 19% is about the number of public sector workers+trade unionists+benefit dependents+lawyers and other parasites.

    Coincidence?

    You decide ...
    I am surprised just how low it is and certainly the honeymoon is over
    They badly need a good news story. Evidently being doomsters and gloomsters doesn’t make for high approval ratings, no matter how much they can blame the previous government.

    There have been a few smallish good news stories (the latest renewables auction for example, and resolving the junior doctors dispute) but they’ve seemed very unsurefooted about even those.

    They need to smile a bit more.
    Everytime a Labour Minister is interviewed it is 22 billion shortfall after 14 years of Tory rule and everything is terrible

    The country threw out the conservatives decisively in July and need hope and optimism, not constant doom and gloom

This discussion has been closed.