Howdy, Stranger!

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

The numbers that Tories have to improve – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,150
edited November 14 in General
The numbers that Tories have to improve – politicalbetting.com

The Conservatives remain the least favourably viewed of the major partiesNet favourability scoresGreens: -1Lib Dems: -4Labour: -25Reform UK: -29Conservatives: -42https://t.co/C3skIxhuCo pic.twitter.com/xYn7SvxeBY

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,280
    edited November 14
    Lib Dem bar charting on those Purple and Red sectors for the Greens!

    EDIT: the linked tweet displays more true.

    And first.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926
    Always a new thread just as I return to the old one.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,568
    Is this an AV thread is disguise?

    Mad to think the only thing saving denying us from a Green administration is the archaic FPTP system ;)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,282
    Hmm. Not great figures.

    No two ways about it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926
    What are the odds on both being confirmed ?
    About 50/50, I'd guess.
    The principled Republicans in Congress have regularly demonstrated their cowardice when it comes to defying Trump.

    Trump stuns with Gaetz, Gabbard picks
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4989408-trump-picks-gaetz-gabbard/
    ..Trump tapped a loyalist to lead a Justice Department he has railed against both inside and outside of the White House — one he sees as a vehicle for carrying out the retribution he has vowed his perceived enemies would see under a second term.
    In Gabbard, Trump selected a figure who has floated numerous conspiracy theories that defy the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence agencies she would oversee. She has routinely espoused narratives likewise peddled by Russia.
    Gaetz’s selection seemed to catch lawmakers off guard. He was not among the names reported to be up for the position, and Democrats are sure to raise that he was previously investigated as part of a sex-trafficking probe launched by the Justice Department.
    As House Republicans met Wednesday afternoon to start leadership elections, one source said there were audible gasps when Gaetz was announced as Trump’s pick for attorney general.
    The picks also raise questions about Trump’s ability to get his nominees through even a Republican-led Senate...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,955
    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on both being confirmed ?
    About 50/50, I'd guess.
    The principled Republicans in Congress have regularly demonstrated their cowardice when it comes to defying Trump.

    It's more likely they are appointed without confirmation
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472
    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, the Gabbard appointment is crazy. I look forward to @Sandpit and @williamglenn telling us how she's a brilliant pick, and she will help Ukraine...
  • Tenth
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,280

    Hmm. Not great figures.

    No two ways about it.

    The important thing is to close the gap with Labour. If say, the Tories get to -20%, and Labour drop to -30%, the Tories win.

    You don’t have to be liked. Just, less disliked than your main opponent.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,916
    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    The great problem (not the only one) with Today and BBC news generally is that they latch onto one aspect of a story and refuse to let it go, sometimes for days. I blame the editors.

    There’s also now a horrible cross fertilisation with other programming, eg yesterday they wouldn’t stop going on about that fecking Russian spy whale when it wasn’t much more than a ‘now finally’ skateboarding dog thing. Lo and behold there’s a whole bloody tv doc following on in the evening!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926
    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on both being confirmed ?
    About 50/50, I'd guess.
    The principled Republicans in Congress have regularly demonstrated their cowardice when it comes to defying Trump.

    It's more likely they are appointed without confirmation
    Is it ?
    That still requires the acquiescence of the Senate.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, the Gabbard appointment is crazy. I look forward to @Sandpit and @williamglenn telling us how she's a brilliant pick, and she will help Ukraine...
    William has already suggested that it doesn't mean anything.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,930
    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,967
    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
  • The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,607
    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
    John Bolton: Mr. Gaetz is “the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history.”
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,568

    Lower favourables and higher unfavorables than Reform? Blimey. It would be interesting to see the workings on that one.

    (First guess, there's an asymmetry in how Ref and Con see each other. Lots of Conservatives seem to see Reform as decent chaps, just tactically mistaken. Whereas those who have jumped to Reform really really hate the Tories.)

    I think that will reverse quite quickly. Badenoch might not be brilliant but she's not palpably evil, and Farage's absenteeism is now a fun meme - Starmer was having fun calling him an immigrant from the US yesterday.

    Again, I think the Lib Dem figures remain more of a concern for the Tories. I assume they are working hard to consolidate a local base in the constituencies they won, and Ed Davey is just a nice bloke.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,074
    This is also why Reform is going to struggle to win and hold many seats unless they supplant the Tories as the party of the right.

    The Lib Dems win seats by being preferred to the alternative by people both of the left and right in their target sears. Tactical voting works in their favour. If I were in a Reform seat, I would tactically vote against them in favour of whichever of the other four parties were best places to challenge. I'm sure many others would do the same.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,268

    Lower favourables and higher unfavorables than Reform? Blimey. It would be interesting to see the workings on that one.

    (First guess, there's an asymmetry in how Ref and Con see each other. Lots of Conservatives seem to see Reform as decent chaps, just tactically mistaken. Whereas those who have jumped to Reform really really hate the Tories.)

    There does seem to be a general idea that Reform consists of a lot of potential Tory voters - it just requires a leader who aligns with their views.

    I would suggest that Reform actually consists of a lot of Tory hating racists and that very few of their voters would consider voting Tory...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,967
    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
    The collapse of the rule of law in the US has huge implications for the UK too. The US is a major trade partner and commerce depends on stability in legal systems.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,607
    Nigelb said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Nigelb said:

    What are the odds on both being confirmed ?
    About 50/50, I'd guess.
    The principled Republicans in Congress have regularly demonstrated their cowardice when it comes to defying Trump.

    It's more likely they are appointed without confirmation
    Is it ?
    That still requires the acquiescence of the Senate.
    There's a theory that Gaetz is the sacrificial lamb who Trump knows will be turned down and then GOP senate can feel good about themselves and wave the rest through.

  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,930
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.

    They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.

    Branding triumphs, I guess.

    Only so far though. They’ve really not made the breakthrough into double figures in the polls I thought they would after the election.

    But yes, the branding is annoying. It means everyone assumes the party that’s best on green issues is the eponymous one. There have been multiple times more interventions, campaigns and solid policy proposals from the Lib Dems on the environment over the past 2 decades than from the Green Party.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,497

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    edited November 14
    Nigelb said:

    On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.

    They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.

    Branding triumphs, I guess.

    The current iteration is more Corbynista left than particularly Green, so loses appeal even as a protest vote or a nudge the bigger parties on environmental issues vote. I think they served a valuable purpose in changing the debates on what is possible 10-25 years ago, but less so recently.

    From their perspective I can see the Corbynista angle probably gets them more MPs than the green protest vote can.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
    The collapse of the rule of law in the US has huge implications for the UK too. The US is a major trade partner and commerce depends on stability in legal systems.
    How much of our pensions and investments are in the US? 30-40%?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,916

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Will Vance be carrying on with twitter smart* gotchas when he’s in post?

    *twitter smart is not actually smart for clarification.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,967

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gaetz#Child_sex_trafficking_investigation,_other_legal_issues_and_controversies
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,484

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,607

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.

    They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.

    Branding triumphs, I guess.

    The current iteration is more Corbynista left than particularly Green, so loses appeal even as a protest vote or a nudge the bigger parties on environmental issues vote. I think they served a valuable purpose in changing the debates on what is possible 10-25 years ago, but less so recently.

    From their perspective I can see the Corbynista angle probably gets them more MPs than the green protest vote can.
    At least two of their MPs are there on a "protest" ticket from rural tory heartlands.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,772
    edited November 14
    Sean_F said:

    Hmm. Not great figures.

    No two ways about it.

    The important thing is to close the gap with Labour. If say, the Tories get to -20%, and Labour drop to -30%, the Tories win.

    You don’t have to be liked. Just, less disliked than your main opponent.
    The key word there is 'Your main opponent '. Your statement is true for 2 party politics and we might return there, but as we have seen from the last election there is a risk to the two main parties that isn't so with LDs Reform, Greens and Indies all performing.

    Voters have already shown they will vote Indy instead of Labour and I am sure Reform and LDs will be a threat in many constituencies instead of the Conservatives.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
  • eekeek Posts: 28,268

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    And Truss's budget - being blunt that Ratnered the brand
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798

    Nigelb said:

    On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.

    They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.

    Branding triumphs, I guess.

    The current iteration is more Corbynista left than particularly Green, so loses appeal even as a protest vote or a nudge the bigger parties on environmental issues vote. I think they served a valuable purpose in changing the debates on what is possible 10-25 years ago, but less so recently.

    From their perspective I can see the Corbynista angle probably gets them more MPs than the green protest vote can.
    At least two of their MPs are there on a "protest" ticket from rural tory heartlands.
    North Herefordshire and Waveney were extraordinary and impressive results. Not sure they are likely to be repeated though, relied on a historically unpopular govt.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,967

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,037

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Are you not allowed to prosecute people who break the law - say through organizing slates of fake electors - if they are your political opponents?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Are you not allowed to prosecute people who break the law - say through organizing slates of fake electors - if they are your political opponents?
    Depends if they are on your side or not. Keep up!
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948
    FPT.

    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Melanie Zanona
    @MZanona
    ·
    29m
    A House Republican tells me &
    @FarnoushAmiri

    that two Republican senators have already texted him to say they will not vote to confirm Matt Gaetz for AG.

    It would need 4 GOP Senators to scupper his confirmation and of course we can’t rule out Trump using the recess . And any member of Congress defying the Dear Leader will probably face death threats from the Maga mob .
    The latter is the issue for a lot of what is coming imho.

    As I have said before on here, he will be after that third term from day one. Who is going to stand in his way?
    The third term isn’t happening . Notwithstanding his age the constitution is clear on that .
    And, if somehow the two-term limit was abolished, Barack Obama would come back and kick his ass in the 2028 election.
    If it's actually abolished, yes, I agree.

    If somehow Trump runs again through legal shenanigans with the two-term limit still ostensibly in place, I think it would be most unadvisable to run a termed-out opponent - even Obama.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Are you not allowed to prosecute people who break the law - say through organizing slates of fake electors - if they are your political opponents?
    Prosecutions are only for the other people. The correct people don't get prosecuted.

    The rule of law in the USA is breaking down.

    How long before you come back over here permanently?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,268

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
    That is the biggest part of the incompetence bit. By the end the cuts werent even saving money, we were spending more on fixing gaps in provision by hiring the same people on expensive day rates rather than paying them a regular salary.
    Yet half the people on here believe that the recent public sector pay increases shouldn't have occurred.

    Reality is that those pay increases are only enough to stop more people leaving they aren't enough (in most cases) to encourage people to join.

    Hardly surprising when at the bottom the Government pay less than the worst private sector call centre...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,955

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,955
    rcs1000 said:

    Are you not allowed to prosecute people who break the law - say through organizing slates of fake electors - if they are your political opponents?

    The law does not apply to some people, so they can't break it.

    SCOTUS says so...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,607

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    It is jaw dropping incredible that the party of Reagan is doing all this.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    It's both those things, was my point.
  • The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    Good morning

    How did they get on in the North East locals last week ?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,754
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    Trump will squash Musk like a fly.
  • Nigelb said:

    On topic, it's annoying the Greens get such an easy ride from the electorate.

    They carry a large amount of non-environmental baggage, and the sheer impracticality of some of their environmental policies does their cause a disservice.

    Branding triumphs, I guess.

    The current iteration is more Corbynista left than particularly Green, so loses appeal even as a protest vote or a nudge the bigger parties on environmental issues vote. I think they served a valuable purpose in changing the debates on what is possible 10-25 years ago, but less so recently.

    From their perspective I can see the Corbynista angle probably gets them more MPs than the green protest vote can.
    At least two of their MPs are there on a "protest" ticket from rural tory heartlands.
    Green here. Ellie and Adrian are hard working local (and worthy) populists building on local issues and very engaged activists.

    The practicality of the solutions offered by a national mandate are unlikely to be tested. Compromise in their direction would be popular. Eg renationalising water, grid, rail, all easy to see why you might go that way. Wealth tax too.

    In the longer term the corbynista lot are probably going to be unhelpful. But short term, they fill the ranks.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    eek said:

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
    That is the biggest part of the incompetence bit. By the end the cuts werent even saving money, we were spending more on fixing gaps in provision by hiring the same people on expensive day rates rather than paying them a regular salary.
    Yet half the people on here believe that the recent public sector pay increases shouldn't have occurred.

    Reality is that those pay increases are only enough to stop more people leaving they aren't enough (in most cases) to encourage people to join.

    Hardly surprising when at the bottom the Government pay less than the worst private sector call centre...
    It is strange that the people most convinced that pay and conditions are far superior in the public sector rather than the private sector are also absolutely determined to work exclusively in the private sector. Says it all.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948
    kjh said:

    Sean_F said:

    Hmm. Not great figures.

    No two ways about it.

    The important thing is to close the gap with Labour. If say, the Tories get to -20%, and Labour drop to -30%, the Tories win.

    You don’t have to be liked. Just, less disliked than your main opponent.
    The key word there is 'Your main opponent '. Your statement is true for 2 party politics and we might return there, but as we have seen from the last election there is a risk to the two main parties that isn't so with LDs Reform, Greens and Indies all performing.

    Voters have already shown they will vote Indy instead of Labour and I am sure Reform and LDs will be a threat in many constituencies instead of the Conservatives.
    As long as there's a quarter of the English electorate who will always vote Tory (even in 2024) and another solid quarter who will always vote Labour and another quarter who will always vote Labour (even in 1983) then the electoral system will always approximate a two-party system. Sure, the Tories could still collapse from here, but I won't believe it until I see it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Explain the continuation of the Hunter Biden prosecution then.

    It's clear this morning that there's literally no depth Trump can stoop to which might trouble you.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,813
    edited November 14
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    Are journalists just rehashing their 2016 articles?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Explain the continuation of the Hunter Biden prosecution then.

    It's clear this morning that there's literally no depth Trump can stoop to which might trouble you.
    Own the libs is a powerful concept. The angrier people get the more it converts a slice of former moderates to Trumpian extremism.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    It's a non exclusive deal.
    Ask the Saudis.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,754

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    JD Vance has commented on it:

    https://x.com/JDVance/status/1856862556628951435

    The main issue with Matt Gaetz is that he used his office to prosecute his political opponents and authorized federal agents to harass parents who were peacefully protesting at school board meetings.

    Oh wait, that's actually Merrick Garland, the current attorney general.
    Will Vance be carrying on with twitter smart* gotchas when he’s in post?

    *twitter smart is not actually smart for clarification.
    Of course he will, it's the only thing he's good at.
  • eek said:

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
    That is the biggest part of the incompetence bit. By the end the cuts werent even saving money, we were spending more on fixing gaps in provision by hiring the same people on expensive day rates rather than paying them a regular salary.
    Yet half the people on here believe that the recent public sector pay increases shouldn't have occurred.

    Reality is that those pay increases are only enough to stop more people leaving they aren't enough (in most cases) to encourage people to join.

    Hardly surprising when at the bottom the Government pay less than the worst private sector call centre...
    It is strange that the people most convinced that pay and conditions are far superior in the public sector rather than the private sector are also absolutely determined to work exclusively in the private sector. Says it all.
    I don't think the public sector pay is superior to the private sector but their pensions are
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,803
    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    Trump wants retribution. Someone who will support the pursuit of those he considers to have wronged him. Dark times.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,089
    edited November 14

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
    The collapse of the rule of law in the US has huge implications for the UK too. The US is a major trade partner and commerce depends on stability in legal systems.
    How much of our pensions and investments are in the US? 30-40%?
    https://www.tradingview.com/markets/world-stocks/worlds-largest-companies/

    The US now absolutely dominates global capital.

    Any "global" tracker is 66 - 70ish % US.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798

    eek said:

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
    That is the biggest part of the incompetence bit. By the end the cuts werent even saving money, we were spending more on fixing gaps in provision by hiring the same people on expensive day rates rather than paying them a regular salary.
    Yet half the people on here believe that the recent public sector pay increases shouldn't have occurred.

    Reality is that those pay increases are only enough to stop more people leaving they aren't enough (in most cases) to encourage people to join.

    Hardly surprising when at the bottom the Government pay less than the worst private sector call centre...
    It is strange that the people most convinced that pay and conditions are far superior in the public sector rather than the private sector are also absolutely determined to work exclusively in the private sector. Says it all.
    I don't think the public sector pay is superior to the private sector but their pensions are
    Its a free market. If we have shortages of over 100k NHS workers then to attract more of them something needs to improve whether its pay, pensions or conditions.

    If we had 5 quality applications for every post, by all means be strict on pay and pensions, but not when we have shortages and end up paying the same people far more expensive day rates instead.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,926

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    Trump wants retribution. Someone who will support the pursuit of those he considers to have wronged him. Dark times.
    With Gaetz, it's as much what he might not do, as what he will.
    Selective non enforcement of the law is also a very powerful political tool.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,074
    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    If they fall out, Musk loses.

    Musk owns a car company, a space exploration company, and the fourth most popular social media platform in the US. SpaceX is the only strategic asset he holds, which could be nationalised on national security grounds if it threatened to leave.

    The US military annual budget is almost 3x Musk's net worth.

    Musk is influential while he is in favour. Let's not overestimate his power though.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    The Gaetz one appears to be creating more news inside the US, so the BBC is simply doing its normal thing of following the editorial decisions made by others, as they do in Britain by following the lead of the Press.

    It's frustrating, because the Gabbard appointment is much more important for the world outside the US, and I wish the BBC would make its own judgements about what is most important to Britain, rather than following the domestic US news.
    God knows what we do with things like Five Eyes. Glad I don't have to make these calls.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It is not exclusively a Republican problem but worse with them. A significant chunk of the billionaire donors back both parties heavily.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472
    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
  • boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Gaetz is a sleazy right-winger so the BBC have a pavlovian hostility towards him.

    Gabbard is a former Dem and Sanders supporter so the BBC have a natural sympathy towards her.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,010

    The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.

    Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?

    It is more the party rather than the beliefs. The beliefs have changed significantly from leader to leader over just the last five years.

    I would put it down to:

    Bad luck on economy (yes same as Dems over there)
    Saying one thing vehemently whilst doing the opposite or nothing
    Backstabbing and division
    Incompetence and corruption
    The Tories thought they could cut, cut, cut without services being affected. Services were affected. People noticed.
    Labour think they can tax tax tax without the economy being affected. Business confidence and growth have fallen. People noticed.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,280

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst fellating him.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,280
    O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.

    Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    And yet people like Rifkind didn't complain at the time.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 474
    Sean_F said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
    FTFY
  • glwglw Posts: 9,899

    TimS said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Yes, odd. One is a largely US domestic concern, the other is a direct risk to our national security.
    John Bolton: Mr. Gaetz is “the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history.”
    All those "he doesn't really mean it" types are going to look like chumps when Trump tries to do all the crazy stuff he's been banging on about.

    I moan about the quality of ministers in the UK, but what Trump is up to by picking people on their willingness to serve him rather than the country makes our government look great.

    God help America and us all.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,497

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He supported Trump, of course. That's orders of magnitude more egregious than supporting Biden.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    If they fall out, Musk loses.

    Musk owns a car company, a space exploration company, and the fourth most popular social media platform in the US. SpaceX is the only strategic asset he holds, which could be nationalised on national security grounds if it threatened to leave.

    The US military annual budget is almost 3x Musk's net worth.

    Musk is influential while he is in favour. Let's not overestimate his power though.
    The power dynamics in this are fascinating: the GOP put Trump in power, but Trump now wants to rule over them. Musky Baby helped Trump, and has a heck of a lot of brain-dead weird nerds willing to agree with whatever 'thoughts' comes out of any of his orifices, and who controls a vast media organisation to allow him to free *his* speech.

    When it comes to the crunch, who will be the dog, who will be the tail, and who will be the deposit the dog's just left on the pavement?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,798
    Sean_F said:

    O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.

    Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).

    There are an average 6 or 7 special elections (by-elections) per year, plus plenty of opportunites for defections if Trump deports 10m or cuts $2tn from the budget (he will do neither).

    I suspect the Dems take control even before the mid terms.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,020
    edited November 14
    Good morning everyone.

    FPT:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    theProle said:

    From that report, it looks like Homebase was bought and stuffed up by the new owners, possibly more than once.

    Wesfarmers had bought Homebase in 2016 and immediately sacked Homebase's senior management team.

    It admitted making a number of "self-induced" blunders, such as underestimating winter demand for a range of items from heaters to cleaning and storage, and dropping popular kitchen and bathroom ranges.

    After Hilco bought Homebase it brought in a swathe of cost-cutting measures.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c624nzepd59o
    Capitalism is too important to be left to capitalists.
    If a company is badly managed it goes bust.

    So frigging what?

    Goodbye to Homebase, hello to better managed firms who can better serve their customers and not take bad decisions that bankrupt the firm.
    Is Wickes still around? 15 years or so ago I worked for a firm which supplied them, Homebase, Focus/Do-it-all (didn't they all get rolled into Homebase?) and B&Q amoungst others.

    B&Q were scum to deal with, utterly ruthless. Also ripped off their customers - some products we packaged for them were half the price packaged differently in Wickes.

    Wickes were best - good to deal with as a supplier. Homebase we fairly incompetent, and not very competitively priced, I'm amazed they lasted as long as they did.

    Wickes is very much still around, got a new kitchen from them last year.

    Bloody nightmare to get it installed, as they kept sending the wrong bits, but it's very nice now it's in.
    I have a trade account at B&Q which just about makes them competitive with Wickes, although I prefer the latter.
    Not wanting to cause trouble, but do you have the 10% trade discount at Wickes?

    And the further 10% (ie 9%) you can get by using the correct reloadable prepaid card, if eligible?
    I haven't, as they weren't giving them away like confetti like they were at B&Q.

    To be fair I was buying stuff for a charitable exercise, so it was vaguely justifiable at the time.

    Might give it a go if I find another project...sounds like it might be worthwhile.
    It's very much worthwhile, you just need to take slight care with how you describe yourself. Go for something like "house renovator", or "gardener".

    The saving money game at Wickes is a little different than it used to be, when they had lots of continuous and occasional "4 for 3" and so on, so timing could be tweaked for bank holidays etc. They were always the best for certain bulk materials, such as Postcrete, as long as you had X (usually 4 or 5) bags. But Postcrete, like plaster, can't be kept for *that* long.

    Another big thing can be delivery charges. Wickes have a threshold of maybe a £250 order for free delivery, and £25 or something for less than that, whilst around here Travis Perkins used to charge about £5.

    When Buildhub started back in 2016, I posted a pinned thread that has loads of wrinkles on it. A basic technique as ever is to climb up the supply chain - so the same fencing stuff (if they have it on their range) from your local agricultural supplier will be about 2/3 less than from Wickes, and perhaps 80% less than B&Q. I still get 3.6m half round fencing rails (twas fun collecting 25 in a Vauxhall Corsa) for about £6, for example, and the smallest 5'6" 2-3" knocker-posts for ~£2.

    I tend not to bother with B&Q, unless only they have it, as their trade discounts seem to be only on random products, unless eg it is a sheet material and I can use their free-cutting-up service rather than taking trestles and a battery jigsaw to the car park. TBF by far the best ever discount I had anywhere was when their computer had the decimal point in the wrong place on a batch of nearly 30sqm of flooring I needed; it was all in my car in minutes once they had said "yes, that's right". 90% off :smile: .

    Link:
    https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/topic/426-creditdebit-reward-cards-discounts-etc/


  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948
    I see the NYT has finally admitted that the GOP has won the House.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,186
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He supported Trump, of course. That's orders of magnitude more egregious than supporting Biden.
    Well it is obviously objectively worse if you are in favour of democracy (Musk isn't). Unless I missed the bit where Biden tried to overturn an election.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,280
    Dopermean said:

    Sean_F said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
    FTFY
    In that case I could imagine him shouting.

    “Musky, Musky Baby.”

    “”What’s that?”

    “It’s my safe word.”

    “F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,484
    Driver said:

    I see the NYT has finally admitted that the GOP has won the House.

    Possibly the worst outcome of November 5th for the Democrats. They really needed one mechanism to block Trump.
  • Sean_F said:

    O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.

    Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).

    Scotus gerrymanded an extra seat for the Dems in both Alabama and Louisiana.

    The actual seat changes from 2022 look likely to be:

    PN GOP +2
    MI GOP +1
    CO GOP +1
    AK GOP +1
    CA Dem +1
    OR Dem +1
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472
    Sean_F said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sean_F said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
    FTFY
    In that case I could imagine him shouting.

    “Musky, Musky Baby.”

    “”What’s that?”

    “It’s my safe word.”

    “F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
    Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,020
    edited November 14
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    The Gaetz pick is an effective piece of trolling.
    If the Senate confirms, despite the clear disgust if at least half a dozen Republican Senators, they've effectively signalled surrender to anything Trump demands.
    If they refuse, they'll probably confirm anyone else, however extreme (Paxton, for example), on the rebound.

    Gabbard is just 😱
    Which is probably the intention.
    I don’t think the Gaetz nomination is some clever piece of tactics. I think it’s what Trump wants: he wants to undermine the rule of law and have a loyal crony who will do whatever he wants.
    It's both those things, was my point.
    He needs someone who will do as they are told, and close down the Federal prosecutions. That's the lynchpin reason. It's possibly a more reliable mechanism for avoiding responsibility for his crimes than a self-pardon.

    Trump is terrified of going to prison.

    Is it just me, or does Matt Gaetz look and behave like a downmarket version of Borat?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,813
    edited November 14

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
    The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you under the guide of it being independent and objective (even with major news networks).

    That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,948

    Sean_F said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sean_F said:

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
    FTFY
    In that case I could imagine him shouting.

    “Musky, Musky Baby.”

    “”What’s that?”

    “It’s my safe word.”

    “F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
    Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
    As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
  • Sean_F said:

    O/T but the Democrats came *very* close to winning the House. I think the Republican majority will only be seven.

    Without some gerrymandering in North Carolina, it would be down to one (albeit, offset by Democratic gerrymandering in New York).

    There are an average 6 or 7 special elections (by-elections) per year, plus plenty of opportunites for defections if Trump deports 10m or cuts $2tn from the budget (he will do neither).

    I suspect the Dems take control even before the mid terms.
    I doubt there will be any effective control by anyone - the majority is too small and the egos are too big.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,472

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
    The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you etc.

    That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
    The two are really not comparable, are they?

    (And yes, I agree that the American political system is polluted by money. But that's the way they seem to want to keep it, and I'd argue what Musk did was much worse.)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,813
    edited November 14

    Driver said:

    Scott_xP said:

    boulay said:

    Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.

    No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.

    Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
    Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.

    Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
    And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.

    The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
    Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis

    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/countries-are-losing-the-fight-with-tech-titans-txtt9b5ck

    It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
    But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
    It was not fine.

    But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
    Musk participated in a democratic process in the open. What's wrong with that?
    He's done rather more than that, hasn't he? His million-dollar a day giveaway is just one egregious example.
    The Harris campaign were doing basically the same. The US system stinks, but apparently its totally within the rules to pay celebs and influencer to take money to endorse you without having to disclose its as an ad, put on concerts to get people to turn up to your rallies, you can pay people to do an interview with you etc.

    That is how these campaigns go through $1bn...
    The two are really not comparable, are they?

    (And yes, I agree that the American political system is polluted by money. But that's the way they seem to want to keep it, and I'd argue what Musk did was much worse.)
    I think they are. Musk came up with a wheeze to get people to events and publicity. Just as Harris did.

    Paying Al Sharpton to interview you on MSNBC is also super dodgy. As is paying influencers to post all over social media vote for a candidate (i got a $20 million for this, but i don't have to tell you this). The Harris.campaign was spamming every influencer they could find, here is $10k if you make a post.

    It is all very grubby and dishonest.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,335
    I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,020
    This is a fun little clip.

    "My wife and I live in very different TikTok algorithms."

    https://youtu.be/7z1oLY6VkbQ?t=534
Sign In or Register to comment.