politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

The next Liberal leader – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,358
edited March 8 in General
The next Liberal leader – politicalbetting.com

We all remember OGH’s 50/1 bet on Obama. Well, I’ve got another for you! 50/1 on Mark Carney to be next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Oh… sorry, no, the bookies are offering 1/50 on Carney. Bet £50 and win £1 if he is elected.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    edited February 25
    Well.

    First again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    Is the header suggesting we lay him ?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    edited February 25
    Nigelb said:

    Is the header suggesting we lay him ?

    I don't think there's any value in the market, but PBers may have different views. I was just amused at such short odds as 1/50 on.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    Nigelb said:

    Is the header suggesting we lay him ?

    Probably a value loser (the lay).

    Odds look too tight to me*, but Carney looks a very likely winner.

    *I know f-all about Canadian politics. But scandals/gaffes happen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,234
    edited February 25
    Yes Carney looks the man to beat and with Trump threatening tariffs on Canada and annexation, polls show if he replaced Trudeau the Liberals could even tie Poilievre's Conservatives

    https://edmontonjournal.com/business/leger-poll-carney-liberals-tied-with-conservatives
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,003
    Sure Carney was longer than this at some point and the prevailing view was that he wasn't well known enough in Canadian politics...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Pulpstar said:

    Sure Carney was longer than this at some point and the prevailing view was that he wasn't well known enough in Canadian politics...

    Indeed he was. He was behind Freeland in early polling. If anyone got a bet on him back then, well done!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,831
    Liberal surge! Thanks to the mango Mussolini.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,641
    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,289
    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Sure Carney was longer than this at some point and the prevailing view was that he wasn't well known enough in Canadian politics...

    Indeed he was. He was behind Freeland in early polling. If anyone got a bet on him back then, well done!
    Yes- I was a Carney sceptic. Mea culpa.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    Nice chart for @rcs1000
    As Russ Doshi and Michael Pettis have highlighted this morning, the deficits of the US and the UK and for that matter India are the fuel that allows others to run surpluses ...
    https://x.com/Brad_Setser/status/1894397794724507824
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    On topic..

    A few weeks ago in Saskatoon, I met a four-year old girl named Ari. She asked me, “Can you stop Trump from invading Canada?”

    Ari is a smart little girl. She is asking the right question.

    I'm running to lead the Liberal Party and to be Canada’s next Prime Minister, because Donald Trump is posing the gravest threat we have faced since the Second World War.
    https://x.com/cafreeland/status/1894192949149536736
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Is that 40pp ahead in the Robert Peston sense?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Nigelb said:

    On topic..

    A few weeks ago in Saskatoon, I met a four-year old girl named Ari. She asked me, “Can you stop Trump from invading Canada?”

    Ari is a smart little girl. She is asking the right question.

    I'm running to lead the Liberal Party and to be Canada’s next Prime Minister, because Donald Trump is posing the gravest threat we have faced since the Second World War.
    https://x.com/cafreeland/status/1894192949149536736

    Freeland, Carney and indeed the other candidates are all pretty much taking the same line on Trump.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,816
    Make America the 11th Province.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    Nigelb said:

    Well.

    First again.

    You risk getting bullied by the boys in the back row if this goes on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well.

    First again.

    You risk getting bullied by the boys in the back row if this goes on.
    Plus ça change..
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,663
    Labour polls 30% by the end of this year has to be a good bet?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,295
    edited February 25
    IanB2 said:

    Liberal surge! Thanks to the mango Mussolini.

    I sense a vibe shift outside America in response to the horror they've inflicted upon us.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 954
    See latest polling in Canada has the Liberals closing to within 3 points. Astonishing change in a month.
    Whilst in the Uk YouGov have four parties within 9 points of each other, the Lib Dems now on 16%, .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,831
    theakes said:

    See latest polling in Canada has the Liberals closing to within 3 points. Astonishing change in a month.
    Whilst in the Uk YouGov have four parties within 9 points of each other, the Lib Dems now on 16%, .

    Liberalism fights back!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    Even the wingnut* doing the interview looks a bit nonplussed by the Truss and just says, "Oh, wow", before hastily wrapping up.

    *assumed - why else would he get Truss on?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    My pic of the day.

    Also, if even the Guardian can correctly use the apostrophe...



    Outcry as DC US attorney claims he and colleagues are ‘President Trump’s lawyers’
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/us-attorney-trump-lawyers
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,835
    Nigelb said:

    My pic of the day.

    Also, if even the Guardian can correctly use the apostrophe...



    Outcry as DC US attorney claims he and colleagues are ‘President Trump’s lawyers’
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/us-attorney-trump-lawyers

    Ummm: do we have any evidence that the President identifies as singular?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 33,904
    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,141
    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Andrew Bailey to take over shortly before the next GE? :lol:
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,822
    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,003
    Selebian said:

    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Andrew Bailey to take over shortly before the next GE? :lol:
    Good lord, talk about frying pan and fire. He's a halfway competent BOE chair. He was hopeless at the FCA.
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,663
    Who knew SKS was the anti woke worrier with his cuts to foreign aid
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 4,663
    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    Perhaps we could ask a question?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    Pulpstar said:

    Selebian said:

    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Andrew Bailey to take over shortly before the next GE? :lol:
    Good lord, talk about frying pan and fire. He's a halfway competent BOE chair. He was hopeless at the FCA.
    A bit too much of an overachiever to be Tory leader then?
  • theakestheakes Posts: 954
    Presumably there will be an MP standing down at the General in a safe Liberal seat thereby allowing Carney to fill the void.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,563
    ...
    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Liz Truss?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,137
    IanB2 said:

    Off topic, if any kind-hearted PB'ers are willing to spare a couple of minutes from your very busy day to sign a petition to the UK government urging it to seek to rejoin the EU pet passport scheme, to make life easier and cheaper for us pet globetrotters, the link is here:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701540

    "us pet globetrotters"? Have you just outed yourself as actually being the dog in your photos?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    Further oddities about the Canadian Liberal Party leadership election...

    - Candidates have to pay $300k to run.
    - But there is no membership fee to be in the Liberal Party, so voting members haven't paid anything.
    - 14 year olds can vote.
    - They use AV to count the votes.
    - Voters are weighted by constituency. Each constituency gets equal weight, so in effect Liberal Party members in places of relative weakness get more say per person than Party members in places of relative strength. (This is the opposite of Presidential candidate primaries in the US.)
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    bondegezou said:

    Nigelb said:

    On topic..

    A few weeks ago in Saskatoon, I met a four-year old girl named Ari. She asked me, “Can you stop Trump from invading Canada?”

    Ari is a smart little girl. She is asking the right question.

    I'm running to lead the Liberal Party and to be Canada’s next Prime Minister, because Donald Trump is posing the gravest threat we have faced since the Second World War.
    https://x.com/cafreeland/status/1894192949149536736

    Freeland, Carney and indeed the other candidates are all pretty much taking the same line on Trump.
    There was a much more pro-Trump candidate, Ruby Dhalla, a former MP, but she was disqualified for breaking campaign finance rules and failing to disclose the involvement of a non-Canadian citizen in her campaign. She denies the allegations.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,406
    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    Selebian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Off topic, if any kind-hearted PB'ers are willing to spare a couple of minutes from your very busy day to sign a petition to the UK government urging it to seek to rejoin the EU pet passport scheme, to make life easier and cheaper for us pet globetrotters, the link is here:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701540

    "us pet globetrotters"? Have you just outed yourself as actually being the dog in your photos?
    Tut, not enough insight. As Matt Ridley once pointed out, it's a good quesiton whether humans are exploiting (certain species of) grasses or grasses humans.

    Likewise, who is the master and who the pet in this relationship?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,871
    A cool video of a lander flying around the moon.

    https://x.com/Firefly_Space/status/1894044670570762301
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,606
    bondegezou said:

    IanB2 said:

    Off topic, if any kind-hearted PB'ers are willing to spare a couple of minutes from your very busy day to sign a petition to the UK government urging it to seek to rejoin the EU pet passport scheme, to make life easier and cheaper for us pet globetrotters, the link is here:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701540

    You mean foreign pets coming over here taking British pets' jobs?
    I was actually thinking the other day that I was surprised there hadn't been more on that theme here from the usual suspects.
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/19/the-rise-of-the-cane-corso-should-this-popular-status-dog-be-banned-in-the-uk
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 550
    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Get a Canadian?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    edited February 25
    Battlebus said:

    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Get a Canadian?
    It worked with Bonar Law.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    My pic of the day.

    Also, if even the Guardian can correctly use the apostrophe...



    Outcry as DC US attorney claims he and colleagues are ‘President Trump’s lawyers’
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/us-attorney-trump-lawyers

    Ummm: do we have any evidence that the President identifies as singular?
    We know he does identify as a King so am looking forward to the NRA finally realising that their day has come to stand up to tyrants and all that.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 550
    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    Battlebus said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
    Maybe it would be cheaper if the government just built and owned some housing. We could get councils to run that activity. Perhaps we could call it "council housing".
  • eekeek Posts: 29,397
    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The state pension is now roughly the same as a person’s individual tax allowance.
    As we need extra money for defense we can no longer support the triple lock and will return to the old double lack excluding wages.

    That should really have been Starmer’s announcement today - instead the cuts to foreign aid makes that sort of long term decision harder
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    On this French Connection, remember that Youtube can be set automatically to generate translated subtitles.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Recall that that increase is very anomalous, as it reflects 10.1% inflation in the previous year.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    That video needs a pig being made into a pork belly in the background.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,148
    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I understand the point you are making I think but 3bn is not 1.2% of GDP.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    You have misplaced your decimal point there.
    You're an order of magnitude out.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,318
    Carnyx said:

    Selebian said:

    IanB2 said:

    Off topic, if any kind-hearted PB'ers are willing to spare a couple of minutes from your very busy day to sign a petition to the UK government urging it to seek to rejoin the EU pet passport scheme, to make life easier and cheaper for us pet globetrotters, the link is here:

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701540

    "us pet globetrotters"? Have you just outed yourself as actually being the dog in your photos?
    Tut, not enough insight. As Matt Ridley once pointed out, it's a good quesiton whether humans are exploiting (certain species of) grasses or grasses humans.

    Likewise, who is the master and who the pet in this relationship?
    Currently only one of the pair can have the other euthanised, so I have a fair idea.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,054
    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I meant an extra 0.2% to Ukraine, not 0.2% in total.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    edited February 25
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I understand the point you are making I think but 3bn is not 1.2% of GDP.
    I overestimated afaics ! I guestimated £2.5bn.

    GDP is estimated to grown by 0.4% in December compared to November. This followed growth of 0.1% in November. The services sector grew by 0.4% in December and production grew by 0.5%, but construction fell by 0.2%. In cash terms, GDP was £2,848 billion in 2024.

    3/2848 = 1.05%.

    So for 0.2% it would have to be £5.7 bn for Ukraine.

    @Nigelb

    You have misplaced your decimal point there.
    You're an order of magnitude out.

    Can I claim a typoo for that one?

    (No more maths from me today.)
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,822
    edited February 25
    Touching the triple lock after the WFA would be disastrous politically. Could the government have borrowed more ? I’m not sure about that but there were 3 options available and Labour went for the least damaging to their future prospects . Cynical it might be but welcome to the world of politics!

    The public well of sympathy for overseas aid isn’t what it was and I’m sorry to say that the outcry amongst charities and social media isn’t going to be representative of the public at large .

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    edited February 25
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I understand the point you are making I think but 3bn is not 1.2% of GDP.
    I don't, as we're supposed now to be sending £4.5b in military aid this year, which is around 0.17% of GDP. I'm not entirely sure what the number is for financial aid ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,406
    Nigelb said:

    JD Vance:
    "The reason the failed establishment hates President Donald J. Trump is because he chooses his words carefully."

    I can think of more convincing reasons.

    Just as well. Imagine what he would be like if he was slapdash with his language!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    MattW said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I understand the point you are making I think but 3bn is not 1.2% of GDP.
    I overestimated afaics ! I guestimated £2.5bn.

    GDP is estimated to grown by 0.4% in December compared to November. This followed growth of 0.1% in November. The services sector grew by 0.4% in December and production grew by 0.5%, but construction fell by 0.2%. In cash terms, GDP was £2,848 billion in 2024.

    3/2848 = 1.05%.

    So for 0.2% it would have to be £5.7 bn for Ukraine.

    @Nigelb

    You have misplaced your decimal point there.
    You're an order of magnitude out.

    Can I claim a typoo for that one?

    (No more maths from me today.)
    I assumed a typo.
    What I'm unclear on now is the intended total of military plus financial assistance.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,907
    US consumer confidence with its biggest slump in four years.

    The Trumpdozer and his team seem as impactful on their economy as Rachel Reeves and SKS were on ours.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,406
    Battlebus said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
    Nearly all those council houses are BTL rental properties now.

    We are living the legacy of Mrs Thatcher's Right To Buy. We have privatised the assets, and now will be paying forever.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,405
    Nigelb said:

    JD Vance:
    "The reason the failed establishment hates President Donald J. Trump is because he chooses his words carefully."

    I can think of more convincing reasons.

    I shudder to think what verbal diarrhoea he would splutter if he didn’t choose his words carefully. Would we notice the difference, though?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,141
    Foxy said:

    Battlebus said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
    Nearly all those council houses are BTL rental properties now.

    We are living the legacy of Mrs Thatcher's Right To Buy. We have privatised the assets, and now will be paying forever.
    You can’t blame Thatcher for the insane immigration policies after she left office.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,769
    "The purpose of a system is what it does" has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    williamglenn said:

    Foxy said:

    Battlebus said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
    Nearly all those council houses are BTL rental properties now.

    We are living the legacy of Mrs Thatcher's Right To Buy. We have privatised the assets, and now will be paying forever.
    You can’t blame Thatcher for the insane immigration policies after she left office.
    Why are you putting words in Foxy's mouth ?

    Her housing policy is what he's rightly criticising.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    edited February 25
    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations. Taxi each way and discomfort until the next day.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    viewcode said:

    "The purpose of a system is what it does" has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

    See, for example, the "Health Department'.
    Or the 'Intelligence Services'.

    Or even the 'Conservative', 'Labour' or 'Liberal' parties.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,405
    nico67 said:

    Touching the triple lock after the WFA would be disastrous politically. Could the government have borrowed more ? I’m not sure about that but there were 3 options available and Labour went for the least damaging to their future prospects . Cynical it might be but welcome to the world of politics!

    The public well of sympathy for overseas aid isn’t what it was and I’m sorry to say that the outcry amongst charities and social media isn’t going to be representative of the public at large .

    If we spend more on defence for Ukraine, we won’t have enough
    military equipment overseas aid spare to send to Yemen, Syria, etc.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    MattW said:

    bondegezou said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    Starmer is moving 0.2% of GDP from aid to defence. Why not just keep the budgets the same, but make clear that 0.2% of the aid budget will go to Ukraine in military aid?
    Perhaps because 0.2% of GDP will not be going to Ukraine?

    The current "headline" number for Ukraine is £3bn, which is about 1.2% of GDP.
    I understand the point you are making I think but 3bn is not 1.2% of GDP.
    I overestimated afaics ! I guestimated £2.5bn.

    GDP is estimated to grown by 0.4% in December compared to November. This followed growth of 0.1% in November. The services sector grew by 0.4% in December and production grew by 0.5%, but construction fell by 0.2%. In cash terms, GDP was £2,848 billion in 2024.

    3/2848 = 1.05%.

    So for 0.2% it would have to be £5.7 bn for Ukraine.

    @Nigelb

    You have misplaced your decimal point there.
    You're an order of magnitude out.

    Can I claim a typoo for that one?

    (No more maths from me today.)
    I assumed a typo.
    What I'm unclear on now is the intended total of military plus financial assistance.
    That's a good point; I'm not sure on the budgetary sources for military + humanitarian + financial, and how it is acccounts for, either.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,397
    nico67 said:

    Touching the triple lock after the WFA would be disastrous politically. Could the government have borrowed more ? I’m not sure about that but there were 3 options available and Labour went for the least damaging to their future prospects . Cynical it might be but welcome to the world of politics!

    The public well of sympathy for overseas aid isn’t what it was and I’m sorry to say that the outcry amongst charities and social media isn’t going to be representative of the public at large .

    There are few points where you can make politically unpopular changes and get away with because you have a justified reason.

    This is one of them where the better option would have been bin the triple lock or increase taxes because you have someone else to blame.

    Now when taxes need to be increased (because seeing the finances they need to be) or the triple lock removed (because again it will need to be) there won’t be any chance you can blame the changes on the orange peril in Washington
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,406
    MattW said:

    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.

    Technically it is an outpatient procedure, but the boundary can be a bit blurred.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,189
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    She's right, he's an utter waste of space.

    Oh well, at least it means we'll be free of him for the time being.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,822
    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    Touching the triple lock after the WFA would be disastrous politically. Could the government have borrowed more ? I’m not sure about that but there were 3 options available and Labour went for the least damaging to their future prospects . Cynical it might be but welcome to the world of politics!

    The public well of sympathy for overseas aid isn’t what it was and I’m sorry to say that the outcry amongst charities and social media isn’t going to be representative of the public at large .

    There are few points where you can make politically unpopular changes and get away with because you have a justified reason.

    This is one of them where the better option would have been bin the triple lock or increase taxes because you have someone else to blame.

    Now when taxes need to be increased (because seeing the finances they need to be) or the triple lock removed (because again it will need to be) there won’t be any chance you can blame the changes on the orange peril in Washington
    Cutting the triple lock will only happen if it’s a cross party decision . It’s now electoral kryptonite to go anywhere near it .

    Labour burnt a lot of political capital on the WFA and that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they touched the triple lock .
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    edited February 25
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.

    Technically it is an outpatient procedure, but the boundary can be a bit blurred.
    Particularly in ophthalmology ?
    Opthalmology, indeed.

    I'll hunt out the letter to see if it is sufficiently blurred, but this feels like I'm being a bit optimistic.

    Even if I get it through, I only upgrade the policy in January, so the payment may be at the previous lower value - even though I did get the larger one for glasses and teeth whcih go up at once. The joys of small print.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,907
    Foxy said:

    Battlebus said:

    Foxy said:

    nico67 said:

    Although this aid cut will go down very badly with charities I expect in the wider public using that to increase the defence budget will play well .

    There weren’t many options open to the government , putting up taxes or cutting more from public services wasn’t a choice they wanted to make .

    What the government spend money on and what the public thinks we spend on are miles apart. Junk the Triple lock to fund defence.

    So:

    The state pension cost £110.5bn in 2022-2023, just under half the total amount the government spends on benefits.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility expected this to grow to £124bn for 2023-2024.

    That would be equivalent of taking the defence budget of 2.5% of GDP to 3.2%
    The UK spends more on housing benefit than it does on most government departments. This feeds into rental price inflation. It's expected to rise to £35 billion by 2027/28 with these additional sums chasing up rental levels.
    Nearly all those council houses are BTL rental properties now.

    We are living the legacy of Mrs Thatcher's Right To Buy. We have privatised the assets, and now will be paying forever.
    Yet since 1990 no govt looked to right the wrong 🤷‍♂️
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.

    Technically it is an outpatient procedure, but the boundary can be a bit blurred.
    Particularly in ophthalmology ?
    Opthalmology, indeed.

    I'll hunt out the letter to see if it is sufficiently blurred, but this feels like I'm being a bit optimistic.

    Even if I get it through, I only upgrade the policy in January, so the payment may be at the previous lower value - even though I did get the larger one for glasses and teeth whcih go up at once. The joys of small print.
    (Update: rabbit hole time. The letter they sent me afterwards says "discharge summary", which implies admission ~ day patient => £100. Now to find the one that booked it.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.

    Technically it is an outpatient procedure, but the boundary can be a bit blurred.
    Particularly in ophthalmology ?
    Opthalmology, indeed.

    I'll hunt out the letter to see if it is sufficiently blurred, but this feels like I'm being a bit optimistic.

    Even if I get it through, I only upgrade the policy in January, so the payment may be at the previous lower value - even though I did get the larger one for glasses and teeth which go up at once. The joys of small print.
    Sympathies.
    Diabetic retinopathy ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,835
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    She's right, he's an utter waste of space.

    Oh well, at least it means we'll be free of him for the time being.
    Errr: he hasn't been Governor of the Bank of England for about 5 years.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,907
    edited February 25
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    She's right, he's an utter waste of space.

    Oh well, at least it means we'll be free of him for the time being.
    She is.

    Just because it’s Liz Truss doesn’t mean she is wrong. As in this case.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    rcs1000 said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Liz Truss has a warning for Canada about Mark Carney
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI6wrifwHQ

    A whole minute of Liz trying to scupper OP's 1/50 bet.

    She's right, he's an utter waste of space.

    Oh well, at least it means we'll be free of him for the time being.
    Errr: he hasn't been Governor of the Bank of England for about 5 years.
    LG knows how to hold a grudge.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,047
    Good on Starmer.

    Promising news. The commitment to 2.5% by 2027 is the basic, but the announcement to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next parliament is crucially important.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,707
    edited February 25
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Can @Foxy (or anybody else) tell me the difference between an Out Patient and a Day Patient at a hospital, and how to tell easily? eg Will the letter be different?

    I was in for an eye injection the Sunday before last - the actual procedure took a couple of hours all in plus waiting time plus recovery, and was a little bit involved in terms of eye drops (about 6 different lots) and examinations.

    It's moderately consequential, as I have a policy which pays me £100 each time I am an in patient or day patient. So if it is day patient I get to make a claim, and it's a course of 5 injections at 4 week intervals.

    I think I'm probably on the wrong side of the line here, but it's worth a check given the £500.

    Technically it is an outpatient procedure, but the boundary can be a bit blurred.
    Particularly in ophthalmology ?
    Opthalmology, indeed.

    I'll hunt out the letter to see if it is sufficiently blurred, but this feels like I'm being a bit optimistic.

    Even if I get it through, I only upgrade the policy in January, so the payment may be at the previous lower value - even though I did get the larger one for glasses and teeth which go up at once. The joys of small print.
    Sympathies.
    Diabetic retinopathy ?
    Macular oedema (English: fluid build-up bulging the lens slightly which can blur acuity of eyesight - my bulge is central). One eye. First treatment. I took it back below the threshold as a result of switching to a pump last autumn, but after discussion with the consultant we decided to go ahead.

    After 25 years, I can't complain really.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,141
    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    Reduce it to AUKUS and have Australia annex New Zealand.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,254
    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    If that's true then any attempt by Starmer to talk sense into Trump is likely to fail and very soon. Starmer will have to revise his defence plans immediately.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,445
    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    There’s a peculiarly spiteful edge to their behaviour with Canada that goes beyond what they do with other countries. Sibling rivalry I suppose.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    edited February 25
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    There’s a peculiarly spiteful edge to their behaviour with Canada that goes beyond what they do with other countries. Sibling rivalry I suppose.
    It may have since been denied, but the fact that the FT reported it suggests a degree of credibility to the story.

    We do live in unusual times.
    ..I am told yesterday was the 1st time since 1945 the US voted with Russia & against Europe at the UN on an issue of European security..
    https://x.com/BBCJLandale/status/1894330556386533429
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,724
    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    When he gets the invite from the King tomorrow, it should list all of his Commonwealth Realms; especially Canada.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,835
    Selebian said:

    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Andrew Bailey to take over shortly before the next GE? :lol:
    I think @williamglenn is thinking more of Christine Legarde.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,445
    TimS said:

    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    There’s a peculiarly spiteful edge to their behaviour with Canada that goes beyond what they do with other countries. Sibling rivalry I suppose.
    Update: seems to be fake news
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,141
    rcs1000 said:

    Selebian said:

    williamglenn said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Odd how someone who isn't even an MP in Canada atm can be a top candidate to be leader of the Liberals and PM.

    A lesson for the Tories perhaps...
    Andrew Bailey to take over shortly before the next GE? :lol:
    I think @williamglenn is thinking more of Christine Legarde.
    The obvious person is the one who appointed Carney.
  • eekeek Posts: 29,397
    nico67 said:

    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    Touching the triple lock after the WFA would be disastrous politically. Could the government have borrowed more ? I’m not sure about that but there were 3 options available and Labour went for the least damaging to their future prospects . Cynical it might be but welcome to the world of politics!

    The public well of sympathy for overseas aid isn’t what it was and I’m sorry to say that the outcry amongst charities and social media isn’t going to be representative of the public at large .

    There are few points where you can make politically unpopular changes and get away with because you have a justified reason.

    This is one of them where the better option would have been bin the triple lock or increase taxes because you have someone else to blame.

    Now when taxes need to be increased (because seeing the finances they need to be) or the triple lock removed (because again it will need to be) there won’t be any chance you can blame the changes on the orange peril in Washington
    Cutting the triple lock will only happen if it’s a cross party decision . It’s now electoral kryptonite to go anywhere near it .

    Labour burnt a lot of political capital on the WFA and that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they touched the triple lock .
    Which is very much why you do it now when you can point at Russia / Trump and say sorry but needs absolutely must
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,197
    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:

    FT Exclusive: Peter Navarro, one of the US president’s closest advisers, is pushing for the US to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network..
    https://x.com/FT/status/1894410479923077584

    ... with Russia to replace them ?

    When he gets the invite from the King tomorrow, it should list all of his Commonwealth Realms; especially Canada.
    Aka "shithole countries"...
This discussion has been closed.