Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

If you’re betting on the 2028 White House race take note – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,543
edited June 28 in General
If you’re betting on the 2028 White House race take note – politicalbetting.com

Alastair Meeks has forwarded me his exchange with Betfair which is something several of us have been pondering for a while, should Betfair list Donald Trump on the 2028 market and what happens if he runs in 2028 (or is allowed to run by the conservative majority on SCOTUS.)

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651
    edited June 28
    Phew!

    A "look squirrel" thread header, to throw those with Starmer Derangement Syndrome off the scent.

    Oh and first on this thread like (edit) @Leon who will be the first to go in studs up on Starmer.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,025
    Currently staying at a Carmelite Priory. They have highly developed commercial skills. Do the poor try harder?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351
    Starmer is absolutely dreadful
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Wrapping up any money with 3 years to go is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322
    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322
    Battlebus said:

    Currently staying at a Carmelite Priory. They have highly developed commercial skills. Do the poor try harder?

    Monks serve God first
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,933
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this.
    Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.

    I have given up on Starmer.
    But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
    Pretty much this.

    The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
    “Slightly mediocre”????

    This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery


    Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”

    Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way

    Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
    Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end

    He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
    Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
    In retrospect he should have found a way to derail Maastricht altogether instead of going for the opt-out approach and creating a two-tier EU.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,833
    edited June 28
    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    I expect the passage of time will resolve this, regardless of the politics, just as it did for sleepy Joe

    Besides, there are too many around him who will fancy a go
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    I suspect if trump runs again the sc is merely a small roadblock that will be swept aside. I doubt hitler for example would of gone of german sc says I cant do this so I will go paint some houses instead of just having them jailed
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,405
    I can see AM's point but ante-post markets are often like this, where new runners can enter the field later. It can be a PITA but...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413
    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,079
    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    If Donald Trump were to be in the betting for 2028, which of course assumes a number of hurdles would have to be surmounted, the Barrack Obama could also be in the betting.
    It looks to me as if Betfair are taking a reasonable stance in this case.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,833

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Blair was better than Thatcher not least for going at a reasonable moment rather than being forced out in humiliation
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,405
    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. He lost the European colonies, and almost Scotland too. Of course, you have to regard Boris and Liz Truss as sui generis.

    What has Starmer done? Three U-turns in two months? The Conservatives had three prime ministers in two months.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322
    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    I suspect if trump runs again the sc is merely a small roadblock that will be swept aside. I doubt hitler for example would of gone of german sc says I cant do this so I will go paint some houses instead of just having them jailed
    To be a dictator though Trump needs to get his approval rating closer to 50% than its current 40% and have the army behind him, otherwise he would risk a revolution
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651

    Phew!

    A "look squirrel" thread header, to throw those with Starmer Derangement Syndrome off the scent.

    Oh and first on this thread like (edit) @Leon who will be the first to go in studs up on Starmer.

    For LOLs I might just change Leon's username to Leon_Voted_For_Starmer
    Oh please do, and lock it in for posterity.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    Thankfully we havent had to put up with a lib dem pm I am not sure we have a vegetable that decays in 12 hours
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    Needless red lines?

    They were the red lines Vote Leave campaigned on.
    And which she didn’t. TMay was a REDACTED
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,207
    Leon said:

    To be a “natural born leader” you need to have most or all of the following

    1. Some charisma
    2. An alpha and determined persona
    3. Total confidence in your skills
    4. Actual skills
    5. Courage

    Of post war British PMs only Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. Boris could maybe have done it but blew it

    To be a "natural born leader" you need to be able to attract a lot of followers who believe in you, and will follow you through thick and thin.

    Natural born leaders don't follow the polls. They lead. They inspire their followers. They are persuasive.

    I agree that Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. So does Trump.
    So did Hitler.

    Natural born leaders can do a lot of harm. Better without them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,933

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    Needless red lines?

    They were the red lines Vote Leave campaigned on.
    Cameron should have seen which way the wind was blowing and led the leave campaign and then he could have set the terms.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    To be a “natural born leader” you need to have most or all of the following

    1. Some charisma
    2. An alpha and determined persona
    3. Total confidence in your skills
    4. Actual skills
    5. Courage

    Of post war British PMs only Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. Boris could maybe have done it but blew it

    To be a "natural born leader" you need to be able to attract a lot of followers who believe in you, and will follow you through thick and thin.

    Natural born leaders don't follow the polls. They lead. They inspire their followers. They are persuasive.

    I agree that Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. So does Trump.
    So did Hitler.

    Natural born leaders can do a lot of harm. Better without them.
    You think natural born non leaders like may, truss, starmer, millibrand help?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    May actually did the hard work to get a deal with the EU which respected the Vote Leave platform of leaving the EU, EEA and customs union and ending free movement. Boris largely copied and pasted that deal except with the addition of the Irish sea border she refused (and Rishi moved back towards reducing that sea border)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413
    edited June 28
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp in 1956 and then flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351
    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    To be a “natural born leader” you need to have most or all of the following

    1. Some charisma
    2. An alpha and determined persona
    3. Total confidence in your skills
    4. Actual skills
    5. Courage

    Of post war British PMs only Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. Boris could maybe have done it but blew it

    To be a "natural born leader" you need to be able to attract a lot of followers who believe in you, and will follow you through thick and thin.

    Natural born leaders don't follow the polls. They lead. They inspire their followers. They are persuasive.

    I agree that Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. So does Trump.
    So did Hitler.

    Natural born leaders can do a lot of harm. Better without them.
    Swings and roundabouts innit
  • TresTres Posts: 2,900

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    not a kneecap fan huh?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Our current politicians of all parties are sub par
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,657
    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    And your evidence for that would be? Their decision this week that it was permissible for the US President to extradite US citizens to dodgy prisons in other countries on his say so while the USSC, err, finds a handy copy of the Constitution, suggests anything is possible.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    Tres said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    not a kneecap fan huh?
    Most people like actual music
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    And your evidence for that would be? Their decision this week that it was permissible for the US President to extradite US citizens to dodgy prisons in other countries on his say so while the USSC, err, finds a handy copy of the Constitution, suggests anything is possible.
    They made the right narrow judgement, but in doing so have blown a massive hole in the U.S. constitutional order.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,007
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    I suspect if trump runs again the sc is merely a small roadblock that will be swept aside. I doubt hitler for example would of gone of german sc says I cant do this so I will go paint some houses instead of just having them jailed
    To be a dictator though Trump needs to get his approval rating closer to 50% than its current 40% and have the army behind him, otherwise he would risk a revolution
    Isn't the nature of dictatorship to not worry too much about percentages of support so much as having hands on the levers of power?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845
    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,394

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    If Donald Trump were to be in the betting for 2028, which of course assumes a number of hurdles would have to be surmounted, the Barrack Obama could also be in the betting.
    It looks to me as if Betfair are taking a reasonable stance in this case.
    How do Betfair lose out by offering him - i.e. why won't they?
    If he doesn't run because he's ineligible, then whoever backed him loses their shirts. If he does get round the term limits and wins, then people who laid him or backed the rest of the field will lose out.

    The only difficulty for Betfair is if he stands and wins on the basis that the constitution doesn't bar him from any of this, only from being made president, but then fails to get the SC to play along with whatever move he wants to pull to actually take up office. But if that happens, Betfair have a nightmare on their hands anyway, regardless of they offer odds on him or not.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    Needless red lines?

    They were the red lines Vote Leave campaigned on.
    Cameron should have seen which way the wind was blowing and led the leave campaign and then he could have set the terms.
    That would have been some U turn.

    Talking of Brexit U turns, there were none greater than @williamglenn 's Damascene conversion.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,657

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    And your evidence for that would be? Their decision this week that it was permissible for the US President to extradite US citizens to dodgy prisons in other countries on his say so while the USSC, err, finds a handy copy of the Constitution, suggests anything is possible.
    They made the right narrow judgement, but in doing so have blown a massive hole in the U.S. constitutional order.
    They have made yet another attack on the concept of the rule of law or limitations on the rights of government against a citizen. They are an utter disgrace.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    edited June 28
    kinabalu said:

    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)

    you want a song about starmer this fits better

    Once upon a time I had big plans
    I was gonna get everything
    I was gonna live in a big old house
    I was gonna be, be a king

    Paul Revere and the raiders (ballad of a useless man)
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    And your evidence for that would be? Their decision this week that it was permissible for the US President to extradite US citizens to dodgy prisons in other countries on his say so while the USSC, err, finds a handy copy of the Constitution, suggests anything is possible.
    They made the right narrow judgement, but in doing so have blown a massive hole in the U.S. constitutional order.
    They have made yet another attack on the concept of the rule of law or limitations on the rights of government against a citizen. They are an utter disgrace.
    It’s truly terrifying.
    As was their decision last year to essentially exempt the President from criminal prosecution.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)

    you want a song about starmer this fits better

    Once upon a time I had big plans
    I was gonna get everything
    I was gonna live in a big old house
    I was gonna be, be a king

    Paul Revere and the raiders (ballad of a useless man)
    But that's not David Soul.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351
    Or even infotainment. Social media then compounded it and made it worse.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351
    I have now been travelling for 14 hours and I’ve got as far as Frankfurt

    😩
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Leon said:

    I have now been travelling for 14 hours and I’ve got as far as Frankfurt

    😩

    Not beaten my record, booked on a direct flight to Copenhagen last year, 3 airports, a bus, a train and 20hrs later....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,933

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Part of being leader is picking your team.

    Of course, Major may have had better material to work with. On the other hand, much of his premiership was compromised by a wafer-thin majority, which we cannot (yet?) say about Starmer.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)

    you want a song about starmer this fits better

    Once upon a time I had big plans
    I was gonna get everything
    I was gonna live in a big old house
    I was gonna be, be a king

    Paul Revere and the raiders (ballad of a useless man)
    But that's not David Soul.
    No but he had a penchant for strange cardigans so its not like he can claim an opinion that counts
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Part of being leader is picking your team.

    Of course, Major may have had better material to work with. On the other hand, much of his premiership was compromised by a wafer-thin majority, which we cannot (yet?) say about Starmer.
    I think Major had a much much stronger pack to choose from. Have a look at some of the junior ministers knocking about at that time. Where as the "strength" in Starmer pack doesn't really exist. Sunak had the same problem, absolute morons left, right and centre from the available squad of a hollowed out Tory party.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,413

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    If Donald Trump were to be in the betting for 2028, which of course assumes a number of hurdles would have to be surmounted, the Barrack Obama could also be in the betting.
    It looks to me as if Betfair are taking a reasonable stance in this case.
    So put him in too. Anybody should be included if there's both back and lay demand from punters.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845
    edited June 28
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)

    you want a song about starmer this fits better

    Once upon a time I had big plans
    I was gonna get everything
    I was gonna live in a big old house
    I was gonna be, be a king

    Paul Revere and the raiders (ballad of a useless man)
    But that's not David Soul.
    No but he had a penchant for strange cardigans so its not like he can claim an opinion that counts
    That was Starsky. DS was Hutch.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    Oh absolutely. As I've outlined many times, the fad for media deregulation abd commercialisation of structures in the 1990's is directly correlated with this.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Bit of the late great David Soul for Gardenwalker:

    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He's still worth one more try
    It's not the time to say our goodbyes
    A technocratic schemer
    But not a total fool
    Don't give up on Keir Starmer
    He can still come throoooooo

    (On topic, betfair should add Donald J Trump to the WH28 market and let the punters decide the price. That's the point of exchange betting.)

    you want a song about starmer this fits better

    Once upon a time I had big plans
    I was gonna get everything
    I was gonna live in a big old house
    I was gonna be, be a king

    Paul Revere and the raiders (ballad of a useless man)
    But that's not David Soul.
    No but he had a penchant for strange cardigans so its not like he can claim an opinion that counts
    That was Starsky. DS was Hutch.
    So he instead he hung out with cardigan wearers which is even worse
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet. They had to give it to a fake lawyer instead.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Well if putting one's mate in as AG is sub-optimal, wouldn't that drop Blair down a notch or two?

    The popular recollection of Thatcher in office is very different to mine.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,351
    edited June 28
    If I don’t make it back from this I want the whole of Spandau Ballet’s album “Journeys to Glory” o played at my funeral
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651
    Leon said:

    If I don’t make it back from this I want the whole of Spandau Ballet’s album “Journeys to Glory” o played at my funeral

    From Frankfurt?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    And your evidence for that would be? Their decision this week that it was permissible for the US President to extradite US citizens to dodgy prisons in other countries on his say so while the USSC, err, finds a handy copy of the Constitution, suggests anything is possible.
    They made the right narrow judgement, but in doing so have blown a massive hole in the U.S. constitutional order.
    They have made yet another attack on the concept of the rule of law or limitations on the rights of government against a citizen. They are an utter disgrace.
    They will, one way or another, come to regret it.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Well if putting one's mate in as AG is sub-optimal, wouldn't that drop Blair down a notch or two?

    The popular recollection of Thatcher in office is very different to mine.
    It is of course not that he put his mate in, it is he is an activist lawyer taking some very extreme positions, that is causing the problem.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    I don't see this by the way as a labour problem, I think all our mp's couldn't run a whelk stall even if you gave them a 200% subsidy they would make a loss
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,458

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Errr. Lamont was pretty shit.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    You can't put the brand new MPs who don't even know how the Commons work as ministers outside some very specific positions e.g. Science Minister or AG.

    As I say, any suggestions?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    Well if putting one's mate in as AG is sub-optimal, wouldn't that drop Blair down a notch or two?

    The popular recollection of Thatcher in office is very different to mine.
    It is of course not that he put his mate in, it is he is an activist lawyer taking some very extreme positions, that is causing the problem.
    Charlie wasn't exactly flavour of the decade in the red tops was he?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,087
    Leon said:

    Starmer is absolutely dreadful

    Describing something as Absolutely Dreadful is a positive thing in the rail enthusiast community.

    On that basis, I am taking it that you are one of Starmer's biggest fans.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,007
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    243 of them entered Parliament for the first time less than a year ago. That leaves about 180, some of who are clearly too old/silly. With 100 or so slots to fill, it's not that much choice.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    You can't put the brand new MPs who don't even know how the Commons work as ministers outside some very specific positions e.g. Science Minister or AG.

    As I say, any suggestions?
    Frankly yes you can....you are looking for a home secretary....I would rather have someone that actually has some ideas there than someone you can say has been in parliament 10 years as a backbencher. Backbenchers are little more than lobby fodder in the first place. Ten years making sure you go through the required lobby does nothing to train you for high office.

    I am fine if they say hey this mp is new but has some interesting idea's here is what they are and why we promoted them even if new
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Donald Trump is candidate again in 2028 given his current approval ratings he will likely be the only candidate on the ballot even if he got Congress to change the constitution to allow him to run again.

    Not sure even the SC would allow that

    I suspect if trump runs again the sc is merely a small roadblock that will be swept aside. I doubt hitler for example would of gone of german sc says I cant do this so I will go paint some houses instead of just having them jailed
    To be a dictator though Trump needs to get his approval rating closer to 50% than its current 40% and have the army behind him, otherwise he would risk a revolution
    Isn't the nature of dictatorship to not worry too much about percentages of support so much as having hands on the levers of power?
    Yes but if you lose too much support from the people as a dictator you either end up fleeing to exile at best like Assad or Idi Amin or shot or hung like Saddam and Ceaucescu and Mussolini
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    243 of them entered Parliament for the first time less than a year ago. That leaves about 180, some of who are clearly too old/silly. With 100 or so slots to fill, it's not that much choice.
    points above....dont believe new should be an obstacle...should be who has ideas that might work
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,786
    Thanks for this, not that I'm anywhere near this market. Betfair are behaving far more egregiously than those Tories who bet on the date of the election.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    You can't put the brand new MPs who don't even know how the Commons work as ministers outside some very specific positions e.g. Science Minister or AG.

    As I say, any suggestions?
    Frankly yes you can....you are looking for a home secretary....I would rather have someone that actually has some ideas there than someone you can say has been in parliament 10 years as a backbencher. Backbenchers are little more than lobby fodder in the first place. Ten years making sure you go through the required lobby does nothing to train you for high office.

    I am fine if they say hey this mp is new but has some interesting idea's here is what they are and why we promoted them even if new
    You can certainly try to fast track them to a more junior positions within government, but no you can't make them Home Secretary. They are unique skills. See the likes of Rory the Former Tory, who got fast tracked into positions and now admits it didn't really go so well, he didn't know how to get anything done and the civil service ran rings around him.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    You can't put the brand new MPs who don't even know how the Commons work as ministers outside some very specific positions e.g. Science Minister or AG.

    As I say, any suggestions?
    Frankly yes you can....you are looking for a home secretary....I would rather have someone that actually has some ideas there than someone you can say has been in parliament 10 years as a backbencher. Backbenchers are little more than lobby fodder in the first place. Ten years making sure you go through the required lobby does nothing to train you for high office.

    I am fine if they say hey this mp is new but has some interesting idea's here is what they are and why we promoted them even if new
    You can certainly fast track them to a more junior positions within government, but no you can't make them Home Secretary.
    Why not?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    I could preach to you all if you like :)
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    Spritual or even spirutual !
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351
    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    I could preach to you all if you like :)
    Begin the seance, Pagan.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,630
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    I’m less despondent - at least for the UK.

    There will come a point where someone will be elected to fix things; because at some point the problems will become too disruptive economically to ignore. I hope that moment comes sooner than later, but we’ll see.

    The nature of the UK constitution and parliament means that stuff can get done very quickly if it needs to. We don’t have any inflexible constitution or supreme judiciary. Parliament can exert itself without question. Change has been delivered that way for centuries, the fact that it is currently politically convenient for parliamentarians to hide behind other state organs to give them political cover to avoid doing difficult stuff doesn’t mean the power isn’t there.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    You can't put the brand new MPs who don't even know how the Commons work as ministers outside some very specific positions e.g. Science Minister or AG.

    As I say, any suggestions?
    Frankly yes you can....you are looking for a home secretary....I would rather have someone that actually has some ideas there than someone you can say has been in parliament 10 years as a backbencher. Backbenchers are little more than lobby fodder in the first place. Ten years making sure you go through the required lobby does nothing to train you for high office.

    I am fine if they say hey this mp is new but has some interesting idea's here is what they are and why we promoted them even if new
    You can certainly fast track them to a more junior positions within government, but no you can't make them Home Secretary.
    Why not?
    Sorry I really disagree with this view...politics is about ideas. Someone comes along newly elected has a lot of ideas the party goes wow they might work....why can they not be promoted to whatever secretary just because they are new elected?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,651

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    It isn't just the leader. Was Major really that good a PM? Really? Or was it that he had a cabinet that weren't totally morons e.g. Hurd, Lamont, Clarke. If Starmer had somebody like a Lamont or Clarke as CoE and hadn't put his mate as AG, I am sure he would be in less trouble.
    erm a question who appointed his cabinet and is responsible for them not being total morons?
    Can you name any super sharp Labour MPs who aren't brand new and who are currently bench warming? They can't even find anybody who has setup or run a business to sit in cabinet.
    So are you saying out of 422 labour mp's the current front bench is the best they can do?
    243 of them entered Parliament for the first time less than a year ago. That leaves about 180, some of who are clearly too old/silly. With 100 or so slots to fill, it's not that much choice.
    Any Cabinet that doesn't include any of Johnson, Badenoch, Patel, Truss, Braverman, Dorries, Jenkyns, Leadsom, Raab or Williamson can't be as inept as one that does
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,501
    Latest from beating heart of Reform:


    Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧
    @EssexPR
    ·
    1h
    Glastonbury is an utter disgrace
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,294
    Leon said:

    If I don’t make it back from this I want the whole of Spandau Ballet’s album “Journeys to Glory” o played at my funeral

    I’ll have the instrumental coda from Hotel California and the theme to Dr Who, circa 1973, played at mine.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    I could preach to you all if you like :)
    Begin the seance, Pagan.
    Can't spiritualism like that is a christian thing....not a christian
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28

    Latest from beating heart of Reform:


    Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧
    @EssexPR
    ·
    1h
    Glastonbury is an utter disgrace

    Is he complaining about the calls to kill the IDF or the terrible quality of the music?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,322
    edited June 28

    Latest from beating heart of Reform:


    Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧
    @EssexPR
    ·
    1h
    Glastonbury is an utter disgrace

    You could play 'Where's Wally' trying to spot a Reform voter at Glastonbury, ironically Sir Rod tomorrow might be the closest
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,845
    Gordon Brown handled the defining episode of his Premiership (the global financial crisis) extremely well. For this reason I'd have him upper quartile of PMs since 1951. Many of the others handled their defining episodes badly. Although of course not all had a defining episode.

    Good game actually. For each PM what was their defining episode? Not what they'd like it to be but what it was.

    Blair - Iraq
    Brown - GFC
    Thatcher - Falklands
    Johnson - Covid
    May - Brexit
    Cameron - ??
    Truss - Budget
    Sunak - ??
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown handled the defining episode of his Premiership (the global financial crisis) extremely well. For this reason I'd have him upper quartile of PMs since 1951. Many of the others handled their defining episodes badly. Although of course not all had a defining episode.

    Good game actually. For each PM what was their defining episode? Not what they'd like it to be but what it was.

    Blair - Iraq
    Brown - GFC
    Thatcher - Falklands
    Johnson - Covid
    May - Brexit
    Cameron - ??
    Truss - Budget
    Sunak - ??

    Surely Brexit is Cameron as well, because that is what brought him down despite having won a majority.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 10,351
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    I could preach to you all if you like :)
    Begin the seance, Pagan.
    Can't spiritualism like that is a christian thing....not a christian
    Hmm, well begin your preaching of whatever you wish.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041
    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown handled the defining episode of his Premiership (the global financial crisis) extremely well. For this reason I'd have him upper quartile of PMs since 1951. Many of the others handled their defining episodes badly. Although of course not all had a defining episode.

    Good game actually. For each PM what was their defining episode? Not what they'd like it to be but what it was.

    Blair - Iraq
    Brown - GFC
    Thatcher - Falklands
    Johnson - Covid
    May - Brexit
    Cameron - ??
    Truss - Budget
    Sunak - ??

    hmmm or in other words gordon brown helped cause the poonami explosion but helped wipe up some of the shit
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,041

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Wrapping up any money with 3 years is rarely if ever a good move unless you have infinite money. Even betting on winners of next seasons EPL isn't an attractive prospect, when you could make a lot more bets inbetween now and then.

    What you can bet on is Starmer being awful. Surely the worst prime minister of our times
    As I posted on the last thread, I’ve given up on Starmer.
    However he is better than his three predecessors, which tells you how bad those predecessors were.

    Right now I have him below May in my list of post 1979 PMs.

    1. Thatcher
    2. Blair
    3. Major
    4. Cameron
    5. Brown
    6. May
    7. Starmer (new entry)
    8. Sunak
    9. Johnson
    10. Truss
    Not unreasonable. Tho I would put Starmer equal last with Truss. And I’d have May next last - she was a catastrophe with her needless red lines
    What sobers me about this list - regardless of whether Starmer is lower middle or bottom ranking - is that this clear evidence of decay in the democratic order.

    Analogously, as has been discussed on here, rock n roll’s great era started with a kind of burp that in 1956 and the flourished from 1963 through to some point in the 80s, and is now essentially a decadent and tired art form.

    There are no more Beatles, and no more Thatchers.
    Yes I’ve often thought about this. And even though Britain has been badly served we are not entirely alone

    The last decent POTUS was Obama and he didn’t really do much. Promised a lot, didn’t deliver. Like Blair

    Germans leaders have been terrible of late

    I sense it’s a mixture of problems. Ageing economies are genuinely harder to run well. Debt piles up even as voters demand more. Also everyone is getting stupider. Add in social media and it’s a recipe for failure

    It’s why I think democracy is doomed medium term
    The last part is key. The rise of infotanment in the 1990's, which then transferred to the internet in the 2000s and 2010s, should never be underestimated. I worked in broadcasting, so saw it happen.
    The media culture is dumbed down beyond infotainment. I think we lost something significant culturally when the Open University was discontinued on broadcast TV.
    It’s the internet, stupid.

    The attention economy - or late-stage capitalism, if you like - is spiritually and intellectually corrupt.
    Certainly spirutually too, as we were discussing the other week. There's a spritual vacuum which is not really the absence of organised religion.
    I could preach to you all if you like :)
    Begin the seance, Pagan.
    Can't spiritualism like that is a christian thing....not a christian
    Hmm, well begin your preaching of whatever you wish.
    Sadly I don't preach either, if the goddess wants you she will come have a chat
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,630

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown handled the defining episode of his Premiership (the global financial crisis) extremely well. For this reason I'd have him upper quartile of PMs since 1951. Many of the others handled their defining episodes badly. Although of course not all had a defining episode.

    Good game actually. For each PM what was their defining episode? Not what they'd like it to be but what it was.

    Blair - Iraq
    Brown - GFC
    Thatcher - Falklands
    Johnson - Covid
    May - Brexit
    Cameron - ??
    Truss - Budget
    Sunak - ??

    Surely Brexit is Cameron as well, because that is what brought him down despite having won a majority.
    Id say IndyRef as well.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,978

    Latest from beating heart of Reform:


    Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧
    @EssexPR
    ·
    1h
    Glastonbury is an utter disgrace

    It used to cost £1 or be free, now it costs hundreds.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,087
    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown handled the defining episode of his Premiership (the global financial crisis) extremely well. For this reason I'd have him upper quartile of PMs since 1951. Many of the others handled their defining episodes badly. Although of course not all had a defining episode.

    Good game actually. For each PM what was their defining episode? Not what they'd like it to be but what it was.

    Blair - Iraq
    Brown - GFC
    Thatcher - Falklands
    Johnson - Covid
    May - Brexit
    Cameron - ??
    Truss - Budget
    Sunak - ??

    Sunak - Getting drenched.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,087
    edited June 28
    Sunak - Stop the Boats / Rwanda?

    Although in terms of number of immigrants, inflation, cost of living, etc, it rather summed up that the government couldn't stop something, put a huge amount into claiming they were going to solve the problem with this scheme and couldn't even get it up and running. Just hapless, useless, clueless.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,630

    Latest from beating heart of Reform:


    Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR 🇬🇧
    @EssexPR
    ·
    1h
    Glastonbury is an utter disgrace

    I mean, I can’t disagree, it looks like my vision of hell, but I can’t really get myself worked up by a lot of champagne socialists trying to be edgy while listening to shit music.
Sign In or Register to comment.