Could this mean shy (young) Trumpers? – politicalbetting.com

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

rottenborough said:

Pro_Rata said:

Feeling doomy today.

As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

No.

If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.

The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.

If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.

Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Crime has fallen under Biden.
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.

Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded

It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/

And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.

Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise

"gonna" ... lol.

That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

Dear God.

Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.

So you'll be voting for the next far right demagogue you stumble across, will you? No, didn't think so.

His 'point' is garbage. America is a vast and complex country that has always had (and always will have) big problems. This has never before led to them electing somebody who doesn't respect their democracy and constitution as president. It wouldn't explain it now.

In the past, usually both parties tend to make vaguely positive noises about upholding the rule of law. Since 2020, the Dems have been caught up with the side which wants to abolish the law. Harris (and Biden) might not bear personal responsiblity for this. But the mad west coast cities which have decriminalised shoplifting and the defund the poluice movement have tainted the Dem brand.
People value democracy. But actually people value safety more.

Trump himself probably knows best what is driving his support. That's why he demonises migrants. He's relentless on that. It's the core of his pitch.

"They are dirty and dangerous and I will protect you from them."

It's nothing new but he's a skilled practitioner.

They're considerably less 'dangerous' than the born citizens' population, statistically.

And his language goes well beyond that. It's not dissimilar to the language used by Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, pre Rwandan genocide.

Taking a granular approach to crime statistics might play into Trump's hands even more. It's their version of "£350 million a week".

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

What happened to France between the wars?

Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

What caused this?

Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

What happened to France between the wars?

Never read enough about this. But it seems a very large number of French actively and enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans during WWII, including betraying allied PoWs and generally aiding and abetting their racial policies.

What caused this?

Antisemitism was big in France, probably as virulent as Germany in its own special way. In fact the Nazis looked to many French writers and theorists to reinforce their own racial bollox.

Taz said:

tlg86 said:

What do we think she'll get?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

A suspended sentence like the guy in Barnsley got.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Crime has fallen under Biden.
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.

Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded

It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/

And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.

Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise

"gonna" ... lol.

That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

Dear God.

Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.

Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?

Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England

But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html

What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.

Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs

PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making

Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.

According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.

These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.

The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.

This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.

The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/elite-lawyers-raise-fees-40pc-amid-ballooning-costs/

"higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition"

Mmm. Works that way, does it, when it's not doctors or train drivers?

kyf_100 said:

Eabhal said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Crime has fallen under Biden.
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.

Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded

It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/

And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.

Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise

"gonna" ... lol.

That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

Dear God.

Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.

Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?

Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England

But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html

Again with the "lived experience".
Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.

Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read.
It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.

Facing multiple crises, how can cities survive?
https://thehill.com/future-america/future-of-cities/4934050-cities-crises-climate-finances-housing/

It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.

I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.

A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.

I agree with this.

There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.

Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).

Intuition matters. A lot.

As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.

ClippP said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like a bargain at double the price, this is further proof that society values lawyers.

Elite lawyers raise fees 40pc to £449 per hour amid ballooning costs

PwC survey shows firms are increasing number of billable hours amid rebound in deal-making

Britain’s biggest law firms are charging their clients 40pc more an hour compared to five years ago as they pass on higher costs to customers, a new report has found.

According to PwC’s annual law firm survey published on Monday, the 10 largest UK-headquartered firms by revenue raised fees to £449 per hour in 2024 – up from £321 in 2019.

These firms also increased the number of billable hours that all lawyers, from trainee to partner, charged clients amid a rebound in deal-making and an active litigation market.

The rise in hourly rates has helped the elite group grow fee income by a record 11.6pc and absorb higher inflationary costs by passing them on to clients.

This includes higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition from US rivals in London, forcing UK law firms to hike salaries to attract and retain talent.

The talent war has seen Britain’s largest law firms, known as the “magic circle”, raise salaries this year for newly qualified solicitors to £150,000 – up 20pc from the prior year.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/21/elite-lawyers-raise-fees-40pc-amid-ballooning-costs/

"higher pay for lawyers because of increased competition"

Mmm. Works that way, does it, when it's not doctors or train drivers?

Would it be a popular move if the government made all lawyers pay 98% income tax?

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

rottenborough said:

Pro_Rata said:

Feeling doomy today.

As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

No.

If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.

The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.

If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.

Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.

Yes, because she's head of a left wing party.

My long-held belief that there will never be a left-wing female president ( Dem party US) or PM ( Labour UK) in my lifetime still holds but is soon the be tested. 50/50 at the mo.

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

What do we think she'll get?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

😱😳😱

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

😱😳😱

Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?

Yah.

One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

What’s going on?

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

😱😳😱

Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?

Yah.

One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

What’s going on?

Selebian said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

All so predictable..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/21/australian-senator-heckled-king-wore-hamas-style-headband/

The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

"Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anabobazina said:

tlg86 said:

What do we think she'll get?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7x17ljpzgo

A woman who threw a McDonald's milkshake over Reform UK leader Nigel Farage during the general election campaign has pleaded guilty to assault by beating.

Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, from Clacton, had previously denied the charge, and will be sentenced at Westminster Magistrates' Court in December.

She is an OnlyFans 'model', so perhaps some form of extended community service linked to that?

My Dyson blade less fan packed up recently.

Is OnlyFans a good place to source a replacement ?

Theuniondivvie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

All so predictable..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/21/australian-senator-heckled-king-wore-hamas-style-headband/

That the Tele would use ‘Hamas-style’ and ‘reminiscent of’ bullshit to whip up morons? Yep, entirely predictable.

Eabhal said:

Selebian said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

All so predictable..

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/21/australian-senator-heckled-king-wore-hamas-style-headband/

The omission of words and punctuation in newspaper article URLs is often fun. Here, my mind is adding a semi colon to get:

"Australian senator heckled; King wore hamas-style headband"

Topping has form for misunderstanding URLs and headlines like that.

(And got very upset when we pointed out his mistake)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

😱😳😱

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

WhisperingOracle said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Also, I recently googled ‘DP World’.

😱😳😱

Did it return lots of results for rogue operators?

Yah.

One thing I have found in recent months is that Google is utterly shit for searching stuff on, I now default to using Bing.

What’s going on?

You're not the only one that's noticed this.

It seems that paid-for results are beginning to swallow Google's usefulness in some areas.

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Crime has fallen under Biden.
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.

Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded

It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/

And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.

Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise

"gonna" ... lol.

That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

Dear God.

Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.

Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?

Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England

But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html

What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?

Jesus effing Christ, I was mocking lefty terminology. Twit

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Leon said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Taz said:

Nigelb said:

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Leon said:

AnthonyT said:

Leon said:

Chelyabinsk said:

FF43 said:

You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.

The characteristics that best predict low voter information, all of which have more effect than partisan affiliation, are being (1) young, (2) poorly-educated, (3) female, (4) low income, and (5) non-white. The only one of these characteristics where the Republicans have a lead is poorly-educated (51-45 among voters without a batchelor's degree); all the others are majority Democrat. Young voters (the biggest determinant of low voter information) split 66-34; female voters 51-44; low income voters 58-36; non-white voters from 61-35 (Hispanic) to 83-12 (black)

lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions

Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws

Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”

Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?

Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden

Crime has fallen under Biden.
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.

Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded

It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.

Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.

The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/

And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.

Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting

This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise

"gonna" ... lol.

That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.

Dear God.

Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.

Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.

Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?

Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England

But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.

People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-store-closures/index.html

What is the point of putting 'lived' in front of 'experience'? How would one experience anything if one wasn't alive?

Jesus effing Christ, I was mocking lefty terminology. Twit

Well be more obvious.

Nigelb said:

Interesting.

The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...

Nigelb said:

Interesting.

The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5
There is emerging evidence that the live herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine might protect against dementia. However, the existing data are limited and refer only to the live vaccine, which is now discontinued in the United States and many other countries in favor of a recombinant vaccine. Whether the recombinant shingles vaccine protects against dementia remains unknown. Here we used a natural experiment opportunity created by the rapid transition from the use of live to the use of recombinant vaccines to compare the risk of dementia between vaccine types. We show that the recombinant vaccine is associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia in the 6 years post-vaccination. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine is associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating into 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. The recombinant shingles vaccine was also associated with lower risks of dementia than were two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis vaccines. The effect was robust across multiple secondary analyses, and was present in both men and women but was greater in women. These findings should stimulate studies investigating the mechanisms underpinning the protection and could facilitate the design of a large-scale randomized control trial to confirm the possible additional benefit of the recombinant shingles vaccine...

FrancisUrquhart said:

bondegezou said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

I wish they would just raise income tax.

They are going to end up breaking their manifesto commitments anyway, albeit pretending they haven't, which I think will go down worse as nobody will believe this well we only said working people etc.

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he will draw £100,000 instead. He will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

rottenborough said:

Pro_Rata said:

Feeling doomy today.

As in Chisinau, despite the apparent narrow win, as in Pittsburgh, outright sacks of cash reframing elections.

Trump 2.0 looks on. Don't know how many normatives will be broken, how much democracy will be curtailed, how fash things will get. Could be not much, a bit icky, a bit scary, could be a full on disaster for the democratic West. Trump 1.0 was probably just icky in the event, with Jan 6th a projectile vomit against the norms, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't just a steady Joe Root setup for a full on Ben Stokes assault.

It may not end up being much, but I too feel chicken licken about the other side.

Doomy too about the facing early Hitler with a gun dilemma. Leon challenges, if you think it's that bad, then why not support Trump / Musk assassination. Fair question with which to engage. Even if one is doomy about the future with Trump, trying pre-cognition on the exact nature of that (a) risks tipping over a democracy that may yet be repairable and has much legal avenue to run and (b) whilst this is in America's system just moves it on to the next guy.

No.

If the worst is to happen, it is to happen, if
America needs to get Trump out of its system, if it needs in a decade to blank out the last decade and pretend it never happened, if Trump and his acolytes need to get all the way to their final bunker, so be it. If I or my kids are to die in democracy's rearguard, so be it, because the love for democracy is strong, will be strong.

It may not come to pass. But it may. And if it does, make sure there is plenty of space in the bunker for those who didn't repent.

I'm feeling pretty gloomy too at the moment about the result. Looks like Trump 2.0 is coming. Harris just isn't pulling ahead enough nationally to be likely to scrape through in swing states that are key. But more than that it is just feels like she is going to fall short.

The betting has it 60/40 Trump and I can't disagree with that based on how the polls are looking. But I'm not folding yet, not by a long chalk. A Harris win is still perfectly compatible with where we are.

If Kamala loses, it will be because of a combination of racism by whites and sexism by men. A double whammy. Nothing to do with Trump. Racism was tested by Obama and he won. Sexism was tested by H Clinton and she lost.

Racism and sexism are the unknowns. Apart from that, she has it in the bag.
I'm sceptical of the betting for reasons we've discussed. I don't think the polling is being grossly distorted by GOP bias. I just think [hope] it is wrong as it was in 2016.

Gender is a bigger obstacle for her than race imo.

Here’s a recent Trump ad.

Kamala is for “they/them”, not for you.

https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1847984248092762622

Sure but I meant her gender. They've never had a woman president but she's not playing that up for a reason. She feels (imo correctly) it's an obstacle not a help.

bondegezou said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

I wish they would just raise income tax.

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.

For Florida. I thought Harris might have an outside shot at it, but it's comfortably gone if my tea leaf reading skills are right.

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

FrancisUrquhart said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Excellent appointment from SKS.

It helps if you provide a bit of detail.

Flatlander said:

bondegezou said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

I wish they would just raise income tax.

Quite.

"We've looked at all the alternative ways of raising tax revenue and it turns out they are all unfair, inefficient, or counter productive. Therefore we'll have to go back on our pledge and raise income tax. We will offset this to some degree by continuing to reduce national insurance albeit by a smaller amount."

If the government wants/needs the money, then why not? It would probably make me a lot less annoyed than I suspect I'm going to be.

eek said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

The problem with any changes to pensions is that people have other options - one of which will be don't bother saving money in the pension in the first place..

bondegezou said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

The rabidly anglophobic* New York Times is again mocking British pretensions, by having the gall to report on the upcoming election for Chancellor of Oxford University.

NYT story says 37 candidates to replace Chris Patten; what do the bookies & punters have to say?

*Actually NYT is staunchly anglophile as any student of US journalism OR daily reader can confirm; very fact they are covering election at Oxford U (home of the Disputing Oxen?) testifies to this, as pretty much nobody else from sea to shining sea gives a damn.

highwayparadise306 said:

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

In person early numbers looking good for Trump in Florida.

Do you mean for Florida or for the US? I thought Florida was now a must for the Republicans.

For Florida. I thought Harris might have an outside shot at it, but it's comfortably gone if my tea leaf reading skills are right.

Latinos voting for Trump to stop immigration and save their jobs according to Donald plus rural types who are GOP supporters.

malcolmg said:

bondegezou said:

Stocky said:

Fishing said:

Just had lunch with a former colleague of mine who works at the Treasury. He was very glad when Labour took over as the last government hadn't gone anywhere for years but is now pretty horrified in an understated, civil servant kind of way about the Autumn Statement and the mess it is in. He says they're running round like headless chickens desperately trying to make the numbers add up, but the previous government used all the politically painless revenue raisers, so they're left choosing between the bad and the worse, especially given the extra spending commitments the government has made.

I'm sure we all guessed something like that was going on, but it's interesting to hear it confirmed by an inside source. Of course much of it may be last minute nerves. Still, too bad there aren't odds on how long it'll take before the Autumn Statement falls apart.

She would be well advised to delay until next year IMO.

I don't think she knows what she is doing.

I was speaking to a fellow financial professional yesterday and we were trying to figure out how limiting tax free cash from a pension raises tax revenue. As far as I can see it will reduce revenue because less taken out would equate to lower VAT on things purchased with the cash. My colleague seriously believes that they are working on the absurd assumption that tax will be raised from the sum withdrawn.

To be clear, if someone has a £1m pension fund (very rare outside of the public sector) and planned to draw £250,000 tax free cash and Reeves capped it at £100,000, he/she will draw £100,000 instead. He/she will NOT continue to draw £250,000 of which £100,000 will be tax-free and pay tax on £150,000.

“very rare outside of the public sector”: citation needed.

seemingly 1.1M people have £1m or more pension pot