Skip to content

Will the Aberdeenshire hotelier run for a third term? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,823
edited December 3 in General
Will the Aberdeenshire hotelier run for a third term? – politicalbetting.com

The rules of the bet are very clear but for the time being I will avoid this market, I do not have any confidence in Trump and the Republican party to observe the constitutional and democratic norms, see the day of infamy that was January 6th 2021, and how Trump has pardoned those violent insurrectionists.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    Given the bizarro thing of depicting Trump as the Emperor from 40k…

    Does that mean running his rotting semi-dead corpse for a third term?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,685
    New polling

    "@ElectionMapsUK
    Westminster Voting Intention:

    RFM: 31% (-1)
    CON: 20% (+1)
    LAB: 19% (+2)
    LDM: 15% (=)
    GRN: 12% (-1)
    SNP: 2% (-1)

    Via @tweetfreshwater, 28-30 Nov.
    Changes w/ 7-9 Nov."

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1996189539594043428
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,419
    edited December 3
    Don't like Betfair's rules here, Trump could simply defy the courts, run and dare the courts to stop him (They might not !) - how would that settle.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,059
    Starkey&Mogg Episode 1: Lies, Damned Lies, and Starmerisms
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpSVEwGpYYw

    Everyone's favourite YouTubers pair up for a new series. Not great fans of HMG.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,060
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I genuinely hope not

    I noticed an interesting statistic in the ' Lifeboat' winter edition that in the RNLI 200 year history around 4 million lives have been saved

    That is extraordinary and something those associated with it can be very proud of

    It's a fascinating organisation. They have their own boat designers incorporating off the shelf kit into the shell of the boat. Good for maintenance purposes. Great away day for engineers/big kids who get to sit in the cabin. I did baulk at the offer to climb through some of the very tight crawl spaces.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,637
    I don't see any reason why the Loser can't run for a "Presiential" election for a third time -- but he would have to run two times, first, presumably.

    (I like to think I know a little about American elections, but have to admit I haven't heard of that one.)
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,703
    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,115
    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,191
    edited December 3
    Pulpstar said:

    Don't like Betfair's rules here, Trump could simply defy the courts, run and dare the courts to stop him (They might not !) - how would that settle.

    Also they mention the Supreme Court ruling that Trump could be elected more than twice, but one of the potential workarounds is that they could rule that the constitution doesn't forbid him from being on the ballot, while still technically preserving the prohibition against being elected a third time (but it's hard to take an injunction out against ~85 million voters forbidding them from voting for Trump III).
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,503
    edited December 3
    nico67 said:

    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

    I agree. I still think that MAGA will be on the ballot in 2028 though, and Trump will in some way shape or form still be driving it. Whether that’s one of his sons running as a proxy or him sitting on social media bossing everyone around like the world’s worst back seat driver, hard to tell at this point.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,096
    edited December 3
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I genuinely hope not

    I noticed an interesting statistic in the ' Lifeboat' winter edition that in the RNLI 200 year history around 4 million lives have been saved

    That is extraordinary and something those associated with it can be very proud of

    It's slightly different. The 4 million is "benefitting today because of us", which is (I take it) the 146000 saved + offspring:

    Peter Tompkins, who prepared the report on behalf of the Company (of Actuaries), said: ‘The RNLI has maintained a remarkable record of data on saving lives over the last 200 years. We combined this with the equally good national record of population statistics to show the effect that family growth has had on the numbers of people to be thankful for the rescue of an ancestor.’



    https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2025/may/06/new-report-reveals-that-4-million-people-are-alive-today-thanks-to-the-rnli

    Fully on board with your attitude to the RNLI however.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,682
    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 6,703
    numbertwelve said:

    nico67 said:

    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

    I agree. I still think that MAGA will be on the ballot in 2028 though, and Trump will in some way shape or form still be driving it. Whether that’s one of his sons running as a proxy or him sitting on social media bossing everyone around like the world’s worst back seat driver, hard to tell at this point.
    There’s the small matter of Vance who will certainly not go quietly .
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,984
    numbertwelve said:

    nico67 said:

    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

    I agree. I still think that MAGA will be on the ballot in 2028 though, and Trump will in some way shape or form still be driving it. Whether that’s one of his sons running as a proxy or him sitting on social media bossing everyone around like the world’s worst back seat driver, hard to tell at this point.
    I think the whole MAGA empire, Trump, Bannon and the lot is going to fall apart, and quite possibly even ahead of the midterms next year, assuming that Trump's health even holds up, which I would say is probably only evens.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,990
    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Betfair behaved disgracefully in delaying for months the settlement of bets after Biden beat Trump. I believe the firm incurred the displeasure of the Gambling Commission at the time but that is little comfort to frustrated punters at the mercy of their whims.

    I wouldn't bet serious sums with them now, and I would definitely avoid any market that depends on their discretion as regards the result. The firm seems to be managed now by kids with little experience of the biz and little concern for their clients.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    a
    Cicero said:

    numbertwelve said:

    nico67 said:

    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

    I agree. I still think that MAGA will be on the ballot in 2028 though, and Trump will in some way shape or form still be driving it. Whether that’s one of his sons running as a proxy or him sitting on social media bossing everyone around like the world’s worst back seat driver, hard to tell at this point.
    I think the whole MAGA empire, Trump, Bannon and the lot is going to fall apart, and quite possibly even ahead of the midterms next year, assuming that Trump's health even holds up, which I would say is probably only evens.
    The next problem is the legacy - see Peronism in Argentina. The worship of a useless, failed sack of shit. Because he is dead, it’s hard to challenge.

    Or Boulangerism in France. Which metastasised into the beginnings of the populist far right there. Which gave us Vichy, in the end.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,191
    nico67 said:

    numbertwelve said:

    nico67 said:

    I just don’t see it. His age and the polling shows this is one issue where there’s little public support for a change to the 22nd Amendment.

    I have little confidence in most of the SCOTUS decisions but this is one area where I can’t see them trying to enable Trump to serve a Third Term .

    So in that case there would need to be a change to the constitution to allow a Third Term and that won’t happen .

    You’re not going to get two thirds of the House and Senate to vote for that . And then 3/4 of State Legislatures.

    I agree. I still think that MAGA will be on the ballot in 2028 though, and Trump will in some way shape or form still be driving it. Whether that’s one of his sons running as a proxy or him sitting on social media bossing everyone around like the world’s worst back seat driver, hard to tell at this point.
    There’s the small matter of Vance who will certainly not go quietly .
    I forget where I saw it, may have been on PB.com, but Vance appears to be involved in intense court politics at the moment, attempting to put his own man in as SecDef to replace Hegseth. Once Vance has a majority of the Cabinet -> 25th Amendment.

    The main reason to think that Trump won't run for a third term is an expectation that Vance will be President before the next Presidential election.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,437
    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I genuinely hope not

    I noticed an interesting statistic in the ' Lifeboat' winter edition that in the RNLI 200 year history around 4 million lives have been saved

    That is extraordinary and something those associated with it can be very proud of

    It's slightly different. The 4 million is "benefitting today because of us", which is (I take it) the 146000 saved + offspring:

    Peter Tompkins, who prepared the report on behalf of the Company (of Actuaries), said: ‘The RNLI has maintained a remarkable record of data on saving lives over the last 200 years. We combined this with the equally good national record of population statistics to show the effect that family growth has had on the numbers of people to be thankful for the rescue of an ancestor.’



    https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2025/may/06/new-report-reveals-that-4-million-people-are-alive-today-thanks-to-the-rnli

    Fully on board with your attitude to the RNLI however.
    He actually states that around 4 million people are alive today that wouldn't be otherwise
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,115
    Sandpit said:

    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.

    What if he's babbling incoherently in a padded cell, rather than the Oval Office ?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    Cyclefree said:

    I could not have put it better myself.

    "Yesterday, Elish Angiolini published the second part of her inquiry into sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces — another meticulously compiled report destined to vanish into the Governmental void. At 235 pages, it follows last year’s 361-page effort, which was prompted by the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard and whose recommendations ministers enthusiastically welcomed before doing precisely nothing with them.

    The inquiry heard that the National Police Chiefs’ Council had produced guidance to help forces tackle these crimes. Yet as of September, over a quarter of police forces still hadn’t bothered to implement it. Angiolini’s own survey found more than three-quarters of young women aged 18–24 had been made to feel unsafe in public because of male behaviour.

    But the most damning part of this stage of the inquiry is not what was found — it’s what cannot be found. “No one was confidently able to tell me how many women nationally report being the victim of sexually motivated crimes in public spaces,” Angiolini told the press conference. There are no reliable national figures for rape in public places. None for indecent exposure. None for sexually motivated assaults. This absence of even the most basic data betrays the truth behind the Government’s much-vaunted pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade: it cannot reduce what it does not bother to count."

    Meanwhile that utter **** Lammy tries to use victims as a justification for abolishing jury trials.

    Didn’t it turn out that figures for domestic abuse of women included reports of domestic abuse of men, at least for some police forces?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,115
    Cyclefree said:

    I could not have put it better myself.

    "Yesterday, Elish Angiolini published the second part of her inquiry into sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces — another meticulously compiled report destined to vanish into the Governmental void. At 235 pages, it follows last year’s 361-page effort, which was prompted by the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard and whose recommendations ministers enthusiastically welcomed before doing precisely nothing with them.

    The inquiry heard that the National Police Chiefs’ Council had produced guidance to help forces tackle these crimes. Yet as of September, over a quarter of police forces still hadn’t bothered to implement it. Angiolini’s own survey found more than three-quarters of young women aged 18–24 had been made to feel unsafe in public because of male behaviour.

    But the most damning part of this stage of the inquiry is not what was found — it’s what cannot be found. “No one was confidently able to tell me how many women nationally report being the victim of sexually motivated crimes in public spaces,” Angiolini told the press conference. There are no reliable national figures for rape in public places. None for indecent exposure. None for sexually motivated assaults. This absence of even the most basic data betrays the truth behind the Government’s much-vaunted pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade: it cannot reduce what it does not bother to count."

    Meanwhile that utter **** Lammy tries to use victims as a justification for abolishing jury trials.

    What did you make of the proposed changes to the rules of evidence in rape trials ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,155
    edited December 3
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Starkey&Mogg Episode 1: Lies, Damned Lies, and Starmerisms
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpSVEwGpYYw

    Everyone's favourite YouTubers pair up for a new series. Not great fans of HMG.

    Along with walk and talk to camera for social media, I am hoping the trend that every public figure has 27 different podcasts has peeked, now that politicians are jumping all over the trend.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,861
    Cyclefree said:

    I could not have put it better myself.

    "Yesterday, Elish Angiolini published the second part of her inquiry into sexually motivated crimes against women in public spaces — another meticulously compiled report destined to vanish into the Governmental void. At 235 pages, it follows last year’s 361-page effort, which was prompted by the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard and whose recommendations ministers enthusiastically welcomed before doing precisely nothing with them.

    The inquiry heard that the National Police Chiefs’ Council had produced guidance to help forces tackle these crimes. Yet as of September, over a quarter of police forces still hadn’t bothered to implement it. Angiolini’s own survey found more than three-quarters of young women aged 18–24 had been made to feel unsafe in public because of male behaviour.

    But the most damning part of this stage of the inquiry is not what was found — it’s what cannot be found. “No one was confidently able to tell me how many women nationally report being the victim of sexually motivated crimes in public spaces,” Angiolini told the press conference. There are no reliable national figures for rape in public places. None for indecent exposure. None for sexually motivated assaults. This absence of even the most basic data betrays the truth behind the Government’s much-vaunted pledge to halve violence against women and girls in a decade: it cannot reduce what it does not bother to count."

    Meanwhile that utter **** Lammy tries to use victims as a justification for abolishing jury trials.

    We have a problem where I live where Juries have to have 10 of the 12 voting guilty to convict which a lot of campaigners understandably, and I agree, allows too many rapists off the hook. Some of my learned friends here who are senior in the legal establishment are convinced that a lot of these cases would have been found guilty if they had been up in front of the Bailiff and Jurats (it’s basically the highest judge and the Jurats are a panel of worthies elected by the lawyers and politicians to administer justice alongside the judges).

    I don’t know if they are correct however they have decades of trial experience and experience of how the courts without juries read cases. I know this won’t be a situation in the UK as I believe the juries are being dropped for offences with potential terms of less than three years but interested if you think rape and serious sexual offences would be better off being adjudicated by a “panel” rather than juries?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 26,781
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I genuinely hope not

    I noticed an interesting statistic in the ' Lifeboat' winter edition that in the RNLI 200 year history around 4 million lives have been saved

    That is extraordinary and something those associated with it can be very proud of

    It's slightly different. The 4 million is "benefitting today because of us", which is (I take it) the 146000 saved + offspring:

    Peter Tompkins, who prepared the report on behalf of the Company (of Actuaries), said: ‘The RNLI has maintained a remarkable record of data on saving lives over the last 200 years. We combined this with the equally good national record of population statistics to show the effect that family growth has had on the numbers of people to be thankful for the rescue of an ancestor.’



    https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2025/may/06/new-report-reveals-that-4-million-people-are-alive-today-thanks-to-the-rnli

    Fully on board with your attitude to the RNLI however.
    He actually states that around 4 million people are alive today that wouldn't be otherwise
    Yes, because if your great great grandfather died before your great grandfather would have been conceived, then you would never have been born.

    Somewhat dubious maths though as if you go back far enough everyone is related to everyone else, but take one ancestor out of that tree and we would not exterminate humanity, it would just have a ripple effect of changes.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,437
    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,155
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    MattW said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    I genuinely hope not

    I noticed an interesting statistic in the ' Lifeboat' winter edition that in the RNLI 200 year history around 4 million lives have been saved

    That is extraordinary and something those associated with it can be very proud of

    It's slightly different. The 4 million is "benefitting today because of us", which is (I take it) the 146000 saved + offspring:

    Peter Tompkins, who prepared the report on behalf of the Company (of Actuaries), said: ‘The RNLI has maintained a remarkable record of data on saving lives over the last 200 years. We combined this with the equally good national record of population statistics to show the effect that family growth has had on the numbers of people to be thankful for the rescue of an ancestor.’



    https://rnli.org/news-and-media/2025/may/06/new-report-reveals-that-4-million-people-are-alive-today-thanks-to-the-rnli

    Fully on board with your attitude to the RNLI however.
    He actually states that around 4 million people are alive today that wouldn't be otherwise
    Yes, because if your great great grandfather died before your great grandfather would have been conceived, then you would never have been born.

    Somewhat dubious maths though as if you go back far enough everyone is related to everyone else, but take one ancestor out of that tree and we would not exterminate humanity, it would just have a ripple effect of changes.
    If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bike...
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,986
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Betfair behaved disgracefully in delaying for months the settlement of bets after Biden beat Trump. I believe the firm incurred the displeasure of the Gambling Commission at the time but that is little comfort to frustrated punters at the mercy of their whims.

    I wouldn't bet serious sums with them now, and I would definitely avoid any market that depends on their discretion as regards the result. The firm seems to be managed now by kids with little experience of the biz and little concern for their clients.
    Think my money was with Smarkets on that one, on the plus side they did allow people to continue to lose their money after the result for which I'm grateful.

    So he both has to be nominated and the Supreme Court have to bend the constitution to allow it.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,976
    Sandpit said:

    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Government racks up £100m bill responding to Covid inquiry
    ...
    This is on top of the £192m spent by the inquiry itself
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9yepzl1rjo

    The good news for lawyers is the inquiry still has another two years to run.

    That’s absolutely crazy.

    Pandemics, like wars, are indeed expensive, but to spend what’s going to end up being close to half a *BILLION* on the inquiry, while learning very little that wasn’t known already about how to handle the next pandemic..?
    The inquiry had nothing to do with learning lessons. Public inquiries never do. If you really want to improve future policy you ask your civil servants for options and consider them and put together green and white papers and so on. That's what they are there for.

    Inquiries are about responding to political pressure and hopefully screwing your opponents, at vast public expense. And also in the process enriching lawyers, judges and consultants. Yet the politicians clamour for them and the public fall for them again and again and again ...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,155
    edited December 3
    Shocked to learn those tipping shit in the Ritz as part of new Just Stop Extinction of the Palestine Youth Demanding Action on Tax have been previously arrested as part of all these previous campaigns. Its the same 50 dickheads time and time again.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,191
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 927
    Dopermean said:

    on the plus side they did allow people to continue to lose their money after the result for which I'm grateful.

    It was beautiful that. Oceans of free money. Almost made it worth it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 58,682
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Shocked to learn those tipping shit in the Ritz as part of new Just Stop Extinction of the Palestine Youth Demanding Action on Tax have been previously arrested as part of all these previous campaigns. Its the same 50 dickheads time and time again.

    Same as most petty or acquisitive crime, they just need to lift a few dickheads and most of it goes away almost immediately.

    There’s a running story in the US at the moment, whereby the same people have been arrested dozens of times for increasingly serious crimes - until one day it’s a murder, the victim utterly failed by a system that should have seen their killer locked up months or years beforehand.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,548
    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    Boris's second act?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,993
    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Betfair behaved disgracefully in delaying for months the settlement of bets after Biden beat Trump. I believe the firm incurred the displeasure of the Gambling Commission at the time but that is little comfort to frustrated punters at the mercy of their whims.

    I wouldn't bet serious sums with them now, and I would definitely avoid any market that depends on their discretion as regards the result. The firm seems to be managed now by kids with little experience of the biz and little concern for their clients.
    If January 6th had succeeded Betfair would have had to pay out Trump backers too. There was a non zero chance of that happening. It is their biggest single betting market over 4 years, paying out twice would be exceptionally costly to them.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 36,207
    Sandpit said:

    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.

    Double if he's resurrected the day after?
  • eekeek Posts: 32,086
    noneoftheabove said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Betfair behaved disgracefully in delaying for months the settlement of bets after Biden beat Trump. I believe the firm incurred the displeasure of the Gambling Commission at the time but that is little comfort to frustrated punters at the mercy of their whims.

    I wouldn't bet serious sums with them now, and I would definitely avoid any market that depends on their discretion as regards the result. The firm seems to be managed now by kids with little experience of the biz and little concern for their clients.
    If January 6th had succeeded Betfair would have had to pay out Trump backers too. There was a non zero chance of that happening. It is their biggest single betting market over 4 years, paying out twice would be exceptionally costly to them.
    How could an exchange pay out twice?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,437
    Benpointer said:

    Sandpit said:

    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.

    Double if he's resurrected the day after?
    Steady on - he may see himself as World King but he certainly is no Christ
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 84,115
    The UK screwed its (very competitive) missile industry by buying the F35.

    The US won't integrate our missiles, so we have to buy their more expensive ones.

    @AviationWeek reports UK plans to acquire the Raytheon GBU-53/B StormBreaker to give F-35 standoff strike capability to mitigate for LM's failure to integrate @MBDAGroup SPEAR-3 in reasonable time.
    https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1996179783982649388
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,993
    edited December 3
    eek said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Nigelb said:

    Betfair's "reasonable discretion" goes well beyond what I'd regard as reasonable.

    So I'll avoid both sides of this bet, even though I think it quite likely he'll be past shambling, let alone running, by then.

    Betfair behaved disgracefully in delaying for months the settlement of bets after Biden beat Trump. I believe the firm incurred the displeasure of the Gambling Commission at the time but that is little comfort to frustrated punters at the mercy of their whims.

    I wouldn't bet serious sums with them now, and I would definitely avoid any market that depends on their discretion as regards the result. The firm seems to be managed now by kids with little experience of the biz and little concern for their clients.
    If January 6th had succeeded Betfair would have had to pay out Trump backers too. There was a non zero chance of that happening. It is their biggest single betting market over 4 years, paying out twice would be exceptionally costly to them.
    How could an exchange pay out twice?
    The complaint on here is they didn't settle on Biden in November. If they had done and Trump had eventually stayed as President instead of Biden it would be both tricky to reclaim the Biden winnings (just about possible if still on site, very doubtful otherwise) or to refuse to pay out to the de facto winner.

    Paying out twice would be out of their funds and it would be tens if not hundreds of millions of loss. That is why they waited, I don't think it unreasonable, given the rules they had at the time and a clear plan by Trump to contest the election by foul means. With better market rules they could have paid out earlier.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,986
    I see that Zia Yusuf has dealt a blow to the career plans of Tory defectors to Reform.
    Do Reform no longer want Tory defectors?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 33,395
    Nigelb said:

    The UK screwed its (very competitive) missile industry by buying the F35.

    The US won't integrate our missiles, so we have to buy their more expensive ones.

    @AviationWeek reports UK plans to acquire the Raytheon GBU-53/B StormBreaker to give F-35 standoff strike capability to mitigate for LM's failure to integrate @MBDAGroup SPEAR-3 in reasonable time.
    https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1996179783982649388

    Lockheed Martin isn't a friend of the UK and should not be treated as one. They even got the contract to process census data a few years back. Utterly disgraceful.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 9,390
    BlancheLivermore said:

    I made beer today. I’m calling it Evening Mist

    Just don't offer it to Germans

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,168
    Dopermean said:

    I see that Zia Yusuf has dealt a blow to the career plans of Tory defectors to Reform.
    Do Reform no longer want Tory defectors?

    Says something about their view of the current Tory MP’s.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,419
    Nursery group 'Committed to learning lessons'
  • isamisam Posts: 43,167
    Obviously Trump running for a third term is against the rules, but I don't see why it would be that big a deal if he did find a sneaky way to do it. We allow it, as do many other countries, so it's not as if he is committing some kind of morally reprehensible act
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,834
    I suspect there will be a President Trump in 2029 just not sure which one. They've three years to properly break American democracy. And after what they've done in one don't doubt they'll manage it.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,986
    noneoftheabove said:

    The most plausible route to me is that the Supreme Court says it doesn't have to make a decision on his eligibility at the stage of nomination, only if he wins. Then once he wins, they say it is too late to stop the will of the people and the harm would be greater by stopping him.

    Seems a plausible possibility, in that event Betfair will be unpopular and on the terms would settle for "No" I think.
    Would be a whole lot easier if they'd just listed him in the "nominee" and "elected President" markets.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,993
    isam said:

    Obviously Trump running for a third term is against the rules, but I don't see why it would be that big a deal if he did find a sneaky way to do it. We allow it, as do many other countries, so it's not as if he is committing some kind of morally reprehensible act

    Populist Boris fan doesn't mind the rich and powerful breaking the law shocker.

    The issue isn't the number of terms, but that the settled laws of the land don't apply to the rulers.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 41,166
    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
  • isamisam Posts: 43,167
    EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.

    The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

    https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1996237497626456337?s=20

    https://t.co/lZR8lCnCZz
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,437
    edited December 3
    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,887
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Sandpit said:

    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.

    Double if he's resurrected the day after?
    Steady on - he may see himself as World King but he certainly is no Christ
    He is, however, a very naughty boy.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,887
    MightyAlex said:

    I suspect there will be a President Trump in 2029 just not sure which one. They've three years to properly break American democracy. And after what they've done in one don't doubt they'll manage it.

    And at least some of them are already at the stage where they can't risk being out of office, because of where their next steps are likely to take them.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 68,437
    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected

    I have no doubt you are correct
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    Stuartinromford said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Benpointer said:

    Sandpit said:

    I have a bet on this subject with Mr Eagles.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5347451/#Comment_5347451

    President on 21st Jan 2029, he says Donald Trump, I say not Donald Trump, £100 at evens, void if he’s dead on that date.

    Double if he's resurrected the day after?
    Steady on - he may see himself as World King but he certainly is no Christ
    He is, however, a very naughty boy.
    "That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die"
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,288
    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,312
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions

    Not inappropriate, as he's a hereditary Labour MP. His dad, Dale, represented the same part of Cumbria. Wouldn't want to pay tax on the family business!
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,993
    slade said:

    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
    They do show some signs of a moral compass.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 16,488
    slade said:

    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
    Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.

    Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).

    We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,060
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected

    I have no doubt you are correct
    Nine facts.


  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 294
    Burgessian said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions

    Not inappropriate, as he's a hereditary Labour MP. His dad, Dale, represented the same part of Cumbria. Wouldn't want to pay tax on the family business!
    He will likely be let back in after Christmas once he has done a stint on the naughty step

    The new Penrith seat is an odd conglomeration, I thought Keswick would be more Lib Dem territory but it has a Labour councillor. The side nearer Maryport will be fertile for Labour. That seats like this have a 5k Lab majority and the loss of Hexham shows the mess the Tories were left in after the 2024 election

    Only 1 Lab MP voted against the IHT proposals, also a few abstained
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,168
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected

    I have no doubt you are correct
    Seconded. I KNOW the feeling!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,933
    edited December 3
    I think it unlikely Trump will try and run for a 3rd term. It would need a constitutional amendment (even this SC has not read the exact opposite of what the constitution says) and the 22nd amendment is clear 'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.' Given the likely Democratic majority in the midterms next year that amendment has near zero chance of being passed given it needs 2/3 of Congress to back it.

    Given Trump's approval rating is less than 40% now he couldn't even be guaranteed to maintain his rule beyond 2028 even with the backing of the military if most of the population wanted him out and were prepared to riot and engage in civil disobedience if denied the means to remove his administration via the ballot box. That would then risk the Trump administration being toppled by force and Trump jailed for the rest of his life. Instead if Trump doesn't run again and VP Vance is GOP nominee and loses and the GOP Congress lose next year Trump can just say had he been on the ballot he would have won a 3rd term without ever needing to prove it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,285
    Will he run? Seems unlikely.

    I don't think you can get zimmer frames that fast.

    (With apologies to our more venerable posters!)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    edited December 3
    TimS said:

    slade said:

    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
    Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.

    Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).

    We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
    The game that is being played here is to let Putin fuck up Trump’s plan. Like last time.

    Zelensky and the other European leaders are “negotiating away”. Looking reasonable and involved.

    Then Putin starts saying that peace is impossible since Ukraine shouldn’t exist - so no deal is valid.

    His guys are now trying to walk that back.

    Meanwhile Poland is building up to have the largest airforce and army in Europe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,285
    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,933
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions

    Despicable act by Starmer and well done Markus Campbell Savours for putting the livelihoods of the farmers in his constituency first, one of the few Labour MPs who deserves to be re elected even if this wretched Labour government deserves to be thrown out of office at the next GE
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    Malmesbury said:

    Given the bizarro thing of depicting Trump as the Emperor from 40k…

    Does that mean running his rotting semi-dead corpse for a third term?

    Better than him being depicted as the God-Emperor of Dune and ruling for 3000 years as he turns into a giant, disgusting slug?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,285
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.

    Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
    let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 294
    ydoethur said:

    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.

    Namesake Teddy stood in 1904 and 1912, mopped up the last of McKinlay's term and was front runner for 1920 before he died .... but you are right. The family dynasties tend to split their chances between various members, Kennedy, Bush, Trump (?!)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    isam said:

    EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.

    The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

    https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1996237497626456337?s=20

    https://t.co/lZR8lCnCZz

    ID cards, trial by judge, banter bans, assisted dying - all strangely absent from the manifesto.
    I don't hold governments to a rigid standard of adherence to a manifesto, and admittedly I am not a fan of the approach to assisted dying, but I really don't see why they couldn't have done it as a government bill even if they didn't want to include it in the manifesto - whilst it was, I am sure, a free vote (and I think the Lords will acquiesce in the end because the Commons supports the principle of the bill) it was clearly backed by the government in general, and they could have had it be a government bill and still permitted freedom of conscience for ministers on the issue, and that might have avoided at least some of the issues of drafting that have arisen with it being led by direct campaigning MPs without more guidance from still supportive but less passionate colleagues.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    kle4 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Given the bizarro thing of depicting Trump as the Emperor from 40k…

    Does that mean running his rotting semi-dead corpse for a third term?

    Better than him being depicted as the God-Emperor of Dune and ruling for 3000 years as he turns into a giant, disgusting slug?
    Especially since that chap was saving the human race based on exact, factual knowledge of the future.

    #LetoIIDidNothingWrong
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 294
    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,285
    DoctorG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
    Er - is that some kind of strange euphemism I'm not familiar with?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    Malmesbury said:

    TimS said:

    slade said:

    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
    Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.

    Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).

    We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
    The game that is being played here is to let Putin fuck up Trump’s plan. Like last time.

    Zelensky and the other European leaders are “negotiating away”. Looking reasonable and involved.

    Then Putin starts saying that peace is impossible since Ukraine shouldn’t exist - so no deal is valid.

    His guys are now trying to walk that back.

    Meanwhile Poland is building up to have the largest airforce and army in Europe.
    I hope that is all true, as Trump really really wants to close even a shit deal so he can cry what a great peacemaker he is, and it'd be nice to think Putin's dumb mouth would mess that up at least somewhat.

    I'm sure Putin is a pretty smart guy, but when you're a dictator for decades let's just say bad habits develop (beyond the bad ones of being a dictator in the first place).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    edited December 3
    ydoethur said:

    DoctorG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
    Er - is that some kind of strange euphemism I'm not familiar with?
    Surely you know about Trump's wife being buried on one of his golf courses?

    Not sure if that was something she requested or if it is all tastefully done or anything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    Malmesbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Given the bizarro thing of depicting Trump as the Emperor from 40k…

    Does that mean running his rotting semi-dead corpse for a third term?

    Better than him being depicted as the God-Emperor of Dune and ruling for 3000 years as he turns into a giant, disgusting slug?
    Especially since that chap was saving the human race based on exact, factual knowledge of the future.

    #LetoIIDidNothingWrong
    Given how absurdly awful all the books after God-Emperor were, I for one look back on Leto II's reign positively.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 76,285
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    DoctorG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
    Er - is that some kind of strange euphemism I'm not familiar with?
    Surely you know about Trump's wife being buried on one of his golf courses?

    Not sure if that was somethign she requested or if it is all tastefully done or anything.
    No, I did not know that.

    There is no limit to this family's weirdness...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions

    Despicable act by Starmer and well done Markus Campbell Savours for putting the livelihoods of the farmers in his constituency first, one of the few Labour MPs who deserves to be re elected even if this wretched Labour government deserves to be thrown out of office at the next GE
    Apparently Starmer withdrew the whip from 7 labour mps when they voted to abolish the 2 child cap

    And last week he did just that after reinstating them !!!!!!!!!!
    It's like when ministers have to go out defending some policy on the news and then find out there'll be a u-turn, sometimes in real time.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,548
    isam said:

    EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.

    The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

    https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1996237497626456337?s=20

    https://t.co/lZR8lCnCZz

    Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,993
    ydoethur said:

    DoctorG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
    Er - is that some kind of strange euphemism I'm not familiar with?
    Perhaps they might join JD and Erika for a foursome. Although JD being younger might play with a stiffer shaft and some extra length.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    williamglenn said:

    isam said:

    EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.

    The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process

    https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1996237497626456337?s=20

    https://t.co/lZR8lCnCZz

    Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
    I assume there's a lot of pressure on the Lords right now to never thwart the will of the Commons (some, I'm sure, are just stymying the bill for the sake of it, not in interests of improving it), so a retaliation like this suggests they would be justified in continuing to play hard ball?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 131,933
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.

    Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
    let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
    Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.

    Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
  • DoctorGDoctorG Posts: 294
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    DoctorG said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand

    Seconded, I reckon there's a not too unreasonable chance he joins Ivana on the golf course before then
    Er - is that some kind of strange euphemism I'm not familiar with?
    Surely you know about Trump's wife being buried on one of his golf courses?

    Not sure if that was somethign she requested or if it is all tastefully done or anything.
    No, I did not know that.

    There is no limit to this family's weirdness...
    Supposedly for tax relief/reasons but you wouldn't know with DJT
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,056
    kle4 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    TimS said:

    slade said:

    LostPassword said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe

    The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers

    Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength

    Both Trump and Putin play on weakness

    Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.

    It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
    I have some hope of the Poles.
    Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.

    Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).

    We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
    The game that is being played here is to let Putin fuck up Trump’s plan. Like last time.

    Zelensky and the other European leaders are “negotiating away”. Looking reasonable and involved.

    Then Putin starts saying that peace is impossible since Ukraine shouldn’t exist - so no deal is valid.

    His guys are now trying to walk that back.

    Meanwhile Poland is building up to have the largest airforce and army in Europe.
    I hope that is all true, as Trump really really wants to close even a shit deal so he can cry what a great peacemaker he is, and it'd be nice to think Putin's dumb mouth would mess that up at least somewhat.

    I'm sure Putin is a pretty smart guy, but when you're a dictator for decades let's just say bad habits develop (beyond the bad ones of being a dictator in the first place).
    I think the outburst was about Putin being 100% locked in on the war. I think he actually believes in it - that it’s vital for Russia to destroy and subsume Ukraine. And he doesn’t think he will survive not winning it.

    Some of those around him are trying to sell an off-ramp.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,535
    As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.

    This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.

    Which would drive Trump quite mad.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,535
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.

    Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
    let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
    Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.

    Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
    Reagan's health was failing quite badly towards the end, so I don't think he could have stood, or would have stood. Unlike one* President I can think of, he was well aware of his fading faculties.

    * I was thinking of Biden. But clearly there are other examples.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 3,312
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?

    I can't think of anyone.

    Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
    let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
    Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.

    Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
    The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote.
    And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,548
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.

    This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.

    Which would drive Trump quite mad.

    Has Obama still got it, politically speaking? All his recent interventions seem to have fallen flat.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,787
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT

    Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions

    Despicable act by Starmer and well done Markus Campbell Savours for putting the livelihoods of the farmers in his constituency first, one of the few Labour MPs who deserves to be re elected even if this wretched Labour government deserves to be thrown out of office at the next GE
    Apparently Starmer withdrew the whip from 7 labour mps when they voted to abolish the 2 child cap

    And last week he did just that after reinstating them !!!!!!!!!!
    I was astonished that a Government making the case for greatly reducing child povertty last week didn't make it the first act of government 15 months ago.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,781
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.

    This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.

    Which would drive Trump quite mad.

    Didn't some minion, sorry, congressman, suggest a bill to make it possible for someone to run for a third term, but only if they had not already served two consecutively, conveniently excluding Obama? Total coincidence I'm sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025