politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump has clear lead three days before the Fox GOP candidat

SystemSystem Posts: 11,768
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump has clear lead three days before the Fox GOP candidates debates featuring 20 hopefuls

This is a very big week on the road to the major political event of 2016 – the election of the next US president. Barack Obama will have served two terms and is barred from staying any longer. This means that both parties will have tight nomination fights.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015
    First - to say that the democrats will be laughing if Trump is selected!
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    Do check it out.

    Twitter
    Ruth Davidson MSP ‏@RuthDavidsonMSP 15 mins15 minutes ago
    Just out of interest, Begehot's at the Corbyn rally, and his time line is worth a look. It's at @JeremyCliffe

    Jonathan Isaby ‏@isaby 44 secs44 seconds ago
    Great live-tweeting by @JeremyCliffe of tonight's Corbyn rally - do check out his tweets...
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    https://twitter.com/jeremycliffe - its a hoot

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628277708280201216
    fitalass said:

    Do check it out.

    Twitter
    Ruth Davidson MSP ‏@RuthDavidsonMSP 15 mins15 minutes ago
    Just out of interest, Begehot's at the Corbyn rally, and his time line is worth a look. It's at @JeremyCliffe

    Jonathan Isaby ‏@isaby 44 secs44 seconds ago
    Great live-tweeting by @JeremyCliffe of tonight's Corbyn rally - do check out his tweets...

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    What are the odds on Trump and Corbyn discussing world affairs in the Oval Office in a few years' time?
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    AndyJS said:

    What are the odds on Trump and Corbyn discussing world affairs in the Oval Office in a few years' time?

    Probably as likely as Palin being VP.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,797
    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

    Yes, a new one just started
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    It's like Dr Who...
    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Category: Thanks Mum!

    Quote from Andy Burnham's Mum's interview with the Mirror...

    “They called our Andy ‘Seven Eights’ at school. He couldn’t remember that seven eights are 56.”
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Is it catching? Another Labour one
    The minister responsible for standards in British schools went to the bottom of the class when he got his sums wrong in a radio interview.

    Stephen Byers, interviewed on BBC Radio Five about government plans to improve numeracy in schools, was asked to multiply eight by seven.

    "Fifty-four," said the minister, whose job is to raise standards in the classroom for reading, writing and arithmetic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49415.stm
    Charles said:

    Category: Thanks Mum!

    Quote from Andy Burnham's Mum's interview with the Mirror...

    “They called our Andy ‘Seven Eights’ at school. He couldn’t remember that seven eights are 56.”

  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Plato said:

    It's like Dr Who...

    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

    Friend of mine works at the Economist. He reckons most of the writers are in their 20s, and a lot are fresh out of university - it's one of the reasons writers are mostly anonymous and stick to the distinctive "house style". If you knew who their writers were as individuals, they'd be far less credible.

    He also reckons they are very clever, in an Oxbridge sort of way. Full of Big Ideas. But not so big on experience. The bottom line is that a smart, young, well-connected Economist writer is not likely to stick around on a journalist's pay when other prospects abound for them.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @paulwaugh: Big coup for @YvetteForLabour: Alan Johnson to endorse Yvette Cooper for Labour leader.
    http://t.co/qGUdcxIrXC
  • Options
    fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,279
    The comedy sketches would just write themselves. :)
    AndyJS said:

    What are the odds on Trump and Corbyn discussing world affairs in the Oval Office in a few years' time?

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,101
    Scott_P said:

    @paulwaugh: Big coup for @YvetteForLabour: Alan Johnson to endorse Yvette Cooper for Labour leader.
    http://t.co/qGUdcxIrXC

    Might well put the price in from 4.3
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 13,032
    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,101
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    They have cartoon horse racing on in the shops these days.
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited August 2015
    FPT, before anyone gets too excited about Michael Shrimpton's Ed-Heath-the-murderer allegations, here's an article from after his conviction for a barmy bomb hoax but before he was sentenced for 12 months:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/539967/Michael-Shrimpton-Bomb-Threats-Kill-Queen-London-2012-Olympics-Nuclear-Attack

    At the start of the two-week trial, prosecutor Alan Blake said: "The information was extraordinary and dramatic, in essence Mr Shrimpton announced that a nuclear weapon stolen from the sunken Russian submarine the Kursk a number of years ago, that such a nuclear weapon had been smuggled into the UK and was being stored in a London hospital in preparation to be used during the Olympic games. ...

    Mr Blake said Shrimpton made references to DVD – the Deutsches Verteidigungs Dienst, or German Defence Service – which he claimed was a shady agency that has "penetrated MI5, MI6 and GCHQ". ... Defending his elaborate terror plot, he told the jury: "I admit that the stuff I deal with is bound to sound strange, high falutin, incredible and fantastic. It's my world, welcome to my world." ... He added that he believed "the German DVD now control Al-Qaeda" and that "Bin Laden himself was a DVD asset".

    ... Shrimpton holds one previous conviction for possession of indecent images of children. A memory stick filled with more than 40 vile pictures was found in his house search and has been the subject of separate proceedings at magistrates' court. There he claimed the intelligence services had planted the pictures. He was handed a three-year community order for the crime and appealed the conviction, but the conviction was upheld.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    Interesting. I used to be a subscriber to the magazine but got fed up with it about seven or eight years ago.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,211
    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

    Nobody with excessive real life experience is allowed be Bagehot or indeed write anything for The Economist; real life tarnishes PPE degrees.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:

    @paulwaugh: Big coup for @YvetteForLabour: Alan Johnson to endorse Yvette Cooper for Labour leader.
    http://t.co/qGUdcxIrXC

    Might well put the price in from 4.3</blockquote

    Given Alan's record in Labour leadership elections, backing David Miliband in 2010 and losing to Harriet Harman in 2007, may not be a great boost for her campaign
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FPT @Charles
    Charles, given that US law ultimately derives from British common law, it is pretty apparent that natural born includes all who are born (regardless of location) with the right to US citizenship and hence do not need to be naturalized. Cruz has that through his US mother.

    I don't think that there is any serious doubt amongst legal scholars in the US that that is the correct legal interpretation. If any doubt exists, it is simply the product of ignorance or people trying for other reasons to create an issue where one does not exist. Of course, all doubt would be removed if the Supreme Court made a ruling, but that will not happen unless a State or candidate challenges Cruz' eligibility.

    FInally, practice is also on Cruz' side. McCain (Panama Canal Zone), Goldwater (Arizona before it was a state) and Romney (George - Mexico) were all candidates who were born outside of the US and whose candidacies were not effectively challenged on the basis of geography of birth
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    What would Scottish Independence have been like with oil at $49 as it is now?
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited August 2015
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    Melanie Phillips has provided an unlikely new backer for Jeremy Corbyn today, arguing that he offers the best spokesman for a Syriza-like anti-austerity agenda and the best chance for winning back Scotland, as well as a challenge to Cameron by backing BREXIT while Kendall simply offers Torylite and Burnham and Cooper flip-flop
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4515426.ece

    Ken Livingstone, less surprisingly, backs Corbyn too (though he says he backed Healey over Foot in 1980)
    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-another-michael-foot--he-can-win-a-general-election-10434758.html
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    On Trump, I think he will be a force, but despite leading in one recent poll there, I don't think he will take Iowa, he is not a fit for the state. I also think Jeb Bush will win New Hampshire in the end, even with Trump snapping at his heels
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    MyBurningEars said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
    Glad you cleared that up. I though FOBT were Fecal Occult Blood Tests. Was wondering why there were so many in East Ham :)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Plato said:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Been reading David Icke again?
    MTimT said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
    Glad you cleared that up. I though FOBT were Fecal Occult Blood Tests. Was wondering why there were so many in East Ham :)
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,211
    MyBurningEars said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
    There is an excellent book, maybe an e-book, by a US researcher titled "Addiction by Design" wherein she analyses just how FOBTs were designed to maximise revenue and profit by getting users into a zone of tranquility where they can block out thoughts about everything else. Compare to traditional gambling where there is often some element of excitement - this is designed to do the opposite, to deaden excitement or feelings. Problematically, because the machines are so cheap to run, extra revenue generation means direct wealth transfers from those who are unusually vulnerable.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited August 2015
    On Topic. Mike, if you did not see it, Nate Silver did a very good piece on Trump's numbers.

    My own view is:
    1. Trump has a ceiling of xx% of first preference votes among GOP primary voters. He is last preference in most of the rest. Thus his upside once other candidates start dropping out of the race will be very limited, which in turn means his best results will be in the early races.
    2. Much of the numbers at this stage reflect name recognition
    3. Many of the polls are not doing a good job of separating out respondents as GOP
    4. None of the polls are applying LV filters for the GOP primaries to their raw numbers.

    All of the above overstate Trump's real relative position in the GOP race.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MTimT said:

    FPT @Charles
    Charles, given that US law ultimately derives from British common law, it is pretty apparent that natural born includes all who are born (regardless of location) with the right to US citizenship and hence do not need to be naturalized. Cruz has that through his US mother.

    I don't think that there is any serious doubt amongst legal scholars in the US that that is the correct legal interpretation. If any doubt exists, it is simply the product of ignorance or people trying for other reasons to create an issue where one does not exist. Of course, all doubt would be removed if the Supreme Court made a ruling, but that will not happen unless a State or candidate challenges Cruz' eligibility.

    FInally, practice is also on Cruz' side. McCain (Panama Canal Zone), Goldwater (Arizona before it was a state) and Romney (George - Mexico) were all candidates who were born outside of the US and whose candidacies were not effectively challenged on the basis of geography of birth

    Damn. Thought I had a good reason why my daughter couldn't be President.

    (We were watching the PM debates earlier as Cameron came on. Q. Who's that? A. He runs the country. Pause. A. I want to run the country.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Plato said:

    Been reading David Icke again?

    MTimT said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
    Glad you cleared that up. I though FOBT were Fecal Occult Blood Tests. Was wondering why there were so many in East Ham :)
    :)
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Former mayor of Rotherham Barry Dodson is a 'dirty pervert who loves children' says woman who 'he abused when she was a schoolgirl'

    Alleged victim, 41, went to police after seeing Mr Dodson become mayor
    She claims he put his hand up her skirt when she was younger than 13
    Ex-councillor, 67, has been arrested for indecent assault over 1987 incident
    Last June, alleged victim emailed him saying 'You have ruined my life and I think it's about time I returned the favour'

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184323/Former-mayor-Rotherham-Barry-Dodson-dirty-pervert-loves-children-says-woman-abused-schoolgirl.html#ixzz3hmexig4Y
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    A new Monmouth University poll gives Trump an even wider national lead

    Trump – 26% (13)
    Bush – 12% (15)
    Walker – 11% (7)
    Cruz – 6% (9)
    Huckabee – 6% (7)
    Carson – 5% (6)
    Christie – 4% (2)
    Paul – 4% (6)
    Rubio – 4% (6)
    Kasich – 3% (1)
    Fiorina – 2% (1)
    Perry – 2% (2)
    Jindal – 1% (2)
    Santorum – 1% (2)
    Graham – * (*)
    Pataki – * (*)
    Gilmore – 0% (-)
    Undecided – 10% (18)
    http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/67f674c8-fd4a-4a93-afbc-8b246a83da56.pdf
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Charles said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @Charles
    Charles, given that US law ultimately derives from British common law, it is pretty apparent that natural born includes all who are born (regardless of location) with the right to US citizenship and hence do not need to be naturalized. Cruz has that through his US mother.

    I don't think that there is any serious doubt amongst legal scholars in the US that that is the correct legal interpretation. If any doubt exists, it is simply the product of ignorance or people trying for other reasons to create an issue where one does not exist. Of course, all doubt would be removed if the Supreme Court made a ruling, but that will not happen unless a State or candidate challenges Cruz' eligibility.

    FInally, practice is also on Cruz' side. McCain (Panama Canal Zone), Goldwater (Arizona before it was a state) and Romney (George - Mexico) were all candidates who were born outside of the US and whose candidacies were not effectively challenged on the basis of geography of birth

    Damn. Thought I had a good reason why my daughter couldn't be President.

    (We were watching the PM debates earlier as Cameron came on. Q. Who's that? A. He runs the country. Pause. A. I want to run the country.
    Damn indeed otherwise we would not have to worry about President Cruz. Well, on second thoughts, that's never going to happen anyways. We can relax!
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited August 2015
    On the surface, it would seem that American (one assumes Republican) voters are as bonkers as Labour voters
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited August 2015
    Have you had an email from Tom Watson yet asking for your vote? I flinched!
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,299
    AndyJS said:

    What would Scottish Independence have been like with oil at $49 as it is now?

    It would have been all the fault of the English!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    SquareRoot said:

    On the surface, it would seem that American (one assumes Republican) voters are as bonkers as Labour voters

    Indeed, and Sanders is now clearly runner-up to Hillary for the Democratic nomination of declared candidates, populists are making ground everywhere. In France Marine Le Pen too, Syriza in Greece, the SNP in Scotland, Podemos and Citizens in Spain, UKIP, the Swedish Democrats etc Even in Canada the NDP are presently top of, or tied, in the polls for October's election, and they are a more traditional left of centre party than the more centrist Liberals
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    SquareRoot said:

    On the surface, it would seem that American (one assumes Republican) voters are as bonkers as Labour voters

    Bonkerness is not limited to one side of the political spectrum afterall :)
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    EPG said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.

    I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.

    The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.

    I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.

    As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.

    FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
    There is an excellent book, maybe an e-book, by a US researcher titled "Addiction by Design" wherein she analyses just how FOBTs were designed to maximise revenue and profit by getting users into a zone of tranquility where they can block out thoughts about everything else. Compare to traditional gambling where there is often some element of excitement - this is designed to do the opposite, to deaden excitement or feelings. Problematically, because the machines are so cheap to run, extra revenue generation means direct wealth transfers from those who are unusually vulnerable.
    I am not much of a person for banning things but FOBT really are an instrument of the Devil and should be outlawed. I'd also wind back the laws on bookies shops and gambling generally to those of, say, the 1970s.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,151
    HYUFD said:

    Melanie Phillips has provided an unlikely new backer for Jeremy Corbyn today, arguing that he offers the best spokesman for a Syriza-like anti-austerity agenda and the best chance for winning back Scotland, as well as a challenge to Cameron by backing BREXIT while Kendall simply offers Torylite and Burnham and Cooper flip-flop
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4515426.ece

    Ken Livingstone, less surprisingly, backs Corbyn too (though he says he backed Healey over Foot in 1980)
    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-another-michael-foot--he-can-win-a-general-election-10434758.html

    Corbyn isn't another Foot. Foot was far more accomplished.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Plato said:

    Have you had an email from Tom Watson yet asking for your vote? I flinched!

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
    Yes. I think that I have had one from everyone apart from Bradshaw. My vote will not be going to the Nonce-finder General. Creasy then Bradshaw then Flint then Eagles then Watson is my current plan.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    SquareRoot said:

    On the surface, it would seem that American (one assumes Republican) voters are as bonkers as Labour voters

    What I did not add to the reasons stated below why I think that Trump's numbers are overstated is that I think there is a substantial element that think Trump is such a tool that they want to have fun with the pollsters. I know of one friend who did that. He would not in a million years vote for Trump, but finds it funny that he is running and took great childish pleasure in being recorded as in the Trump column.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Plato said:

    Have you had an email from Tom Watson yet asking for your vote? I flinched!

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
    Quite so, but Watson knows the dark arts.. I would not trust Watson with my vote(even if I had one) if my life depended on it. He is the sort of person Labour need to get rid of.,..
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Stories like this show the danger of the uncontrolled immigration at Dover:

    http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Illegal-immigrant-accused-murdering-wife-Bristol/story-27536318-detail/story.html
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,583
    AndyJS said:

    What would Scottish Independence have been like with oil at $49 as it is now?

    Sadly I'm not sure it would have made much difference. It obviously should do so, as it blows a bloody great hole in the YES campaign's economic argument, but that argument was incredibly weak before the price tanked, but that nats didn't concede that fact.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,151
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
    I can fully appreciate their view that Blair was a virus. He poisoned British politics. He managed to poison the Conservative Party with his views.

    But, I don't think that Corbyn would be an improvement. He's more authentic than Blair, but he's off the wall.

  • Options
    dodradedodrade Posts: 595
    MyBurningEars said:

    Plato said:

    It's like Dr Who...

    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

    Friend of mine works at the Economist. He reckons most of the writers are in their 20s, and a lot are fresh out of university - it's one of the reasons writers are mostly anonymous and stick to the distinctive "house style". If you knew who their writers were as individuals, they'd be far less credible.

    He also reckons they are very clever, in an Oxbridge sort of way. Full of Big Ideas. But not so big on experience. The bottom line is that a smart, young, well-connected Economist writer is not likely to stick around on a journalist's pay when other prospects abound for them.
    Apparently The New Republic is also mainly staffed by twentysomethings. In fact when the film "Shattered Glass" (about Stephen Glass who faked half his articles for the magazine) was released a place card had to be added explaining this as test audiences couldn't believe that most of the magazine's staff would be so young.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Melanie Phillips has provided an unlikely new backer for Jeremy Corbyn today, arguing that he offers the best spokesman for a Syriza-like anti-austerity agenda and the best chance for winning back Scotland, as well as a challenge to Cameron by backing BREXIT while Kendall simply offers Torylite and Burnham and Cooper flip-flop
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4515426.ece

    Ken Livingstone, less surprisingly, backs Corbyn too (though he says he backed Healey over Foot in 1980)
    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-another-michael-foot--he-can-win-a-general-election-10434758.html

    Corbyn isn't another Foot. Foot was far more accomplished.
    Indeed, but Corbyn may be a more effective rabble rouser
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    I've had the same experience with the Economist. Having met a few of their journalists, I find that they are often quite young without any amount of deep thought on an issue. Typically they will write an article after speaking to two sides on the topic, repeating their points, before coming down on the more liberal position, be it economic or social. I don't think I've ever read an article in the magazine where I could not predict their position before starting reading it.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    JEO said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    I've had the same experience with the Economist. Having met a few of their journalists, I find that they are often quite young without any amount of deep thought on an issue. Typically they will write an article after speaking to two sides on the topic, repeating their points, before coming down on the more liberal position, be it economic or social. I don't think I've ever read an article in the magazine where I could not predict their position before starting reading it.
    I gave up on the economist in 1990, I haven't looked back since.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    Sean_F said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    I gather 1000ish Londoners attempted to touch his hem. And offered gourds.

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Plato said:

    //twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/628281815216861184

    They may be rather delusional, but they have numbers and enthusiasm. Corbyn to win!
    He is not the Messiah, just a very naughty boy!

    Nonetheless he is likely to get a lot of votes from this rather odd electorate.
    I can fully appreciate their view that Blair was a virus. He poisoned British politics. He managed to poison the Conservative Party with his views.

    But, I don't think that Corbyn would be an improvement. He's more authentic than Blair, but he's off the wall.

    Corbyn is authentic all right. He's an authentic half-wit who hasn't had an original thought in 40 years and even then just adopted the same ideas that half-wits in the 1930's had.

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    JEO said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    I've had the same experience with the Economist. Having met a few of their journalists, I find that they are often quite young without any amount of deep thought on an issue. Typically they will write an article after speaking to two sides on the topic, repeating their points, before coming down on the more liberal position, be it economic or social. I don't think I've ever read an article in the magazine where I could not predict their position before starting reading it.
    I find that with most newspaper articles. I have never ever read an article in a mainstream newspaper about some event or matter in which I have been involved that has not been inaccurate to a greater or lesser extent.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a623fd1e-393b-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html#ixzz3hms0LDWO
    Sadiq Khan, the London mayoral hopeful, is of the soft left, as are shadow cabinet members Hilary Benn and Lucy Powell. Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham themselves increasingly match the description.

    On May 8, these people had a lot to answer for. Three months on, they count as moderates. By standing still as their party spasms leftward, they have attained a spurious credibility. Labour’s proximate problem is Mr Corbyn but its ultimate problem is the soft left. When he burns out, these crack election-losers will still be there, looking plausible and being diligently wrong about things.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a623fd1e-393b-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html#ixzz3hms0LDWO

    Sadiq Khan, the London mayoral hopeful, is of the soft left, as are shadow cabinet members Hilary Benn and Lucy Powell. Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham themselves increasingly match the description.

    On May 8, these people had a lot to answer for. Three months on, they count as moderates. By standing still as their party spasms leftward, they have attained a spurious credibility. Labour’s proximate problem is Mr Corbyn but its ultimate problem is the soft left. When he burns out, these crack election-losers will still be there, looking plausible and being diligently wrong about things.

    The "soft left" London Mayoral hopeful who wants South African style Affirmative Action for BAMEs in a city that has never had anti BAME legislation and where white Brits are now in the minority
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,945
    MyBurningEars said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
    I once featured on the front page of the Daily Mail. They got my name and my university wrong. The rest of the story wasn't much better.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,147
    slade said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
    I once featured on the front page of the Daily Mail. They got my name and my university wrong. The rest of the story wasn't much better.
    Are you sure it was about you? ;)
  • Options
    sladeslade Posts: 1,945
    RobD said:

    slade said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
    I once featured on the front page of the Daily Mail. They got my name and my university wrong. The rest of the story wasn't much better.
    Are you sure it was about you? ;)
    Oh yes. They also got a Conservative MP to ask a question in Parliament!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,151
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a623fd1e-393b-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152.html#ixzz3hms0LDWO

    Sadiq Khan, the London mayoral hopeful, is of the soft left, as are shadow cabinet members Hilary Benn and Lucy Powell. Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham themselves increasingly match the description.

    On May 8, these people had a lot to answer for. Three months on, they count as moderates. By standing still as their party spasms leftward, they have attained a spurious credibility. Labour’s proximate problem is Mr Corbyn but its ultimate problem is the soft left. When he burns out, these crack election-losers will still be there, looking plausible and being diligently wrong about things.
    The "soft left" London Mayoral hopeful who wants South African style Affirmative Action for BAMEs in a city that has never had anti BAME legislation and where white Brits are now in the minority

    It shows how far to the Left of the electorate the London Labour Party is.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    HYUFD said:

    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
    I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    dodrade said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    Plato said:

    It's like Dr Who...

    Cookie said:

    That's Bagehot? He looks about 30. Have there been several Bagehots? Is it passed down from venerable journalists to favoured acolytes? I can't remember a tie when there hasn't been a Bagehot at the Economist.

    Friend of mine works at the Economist. He reckons most of the writers are in their 20s, and a lot are fresh out of university - it's one of the reasons writers are mostly anonymous and stick to the distinctive "house style". If you knew who their writers were as individuals, they'd be far less credible.

    He also reckons they are very clever, in an Oxbridge sort of way. Full of Big Ideas. But not so big on experience. The bottom line is that a smart, young, well-connected Economist writer is not likely to stick around on a journalist's pay when other prospects abound for them.
    Apparently The New Republic is also mainly staffed by twentysomethings. In fact when the film "Shattered Glass" (about Stephen Glass who faked half his articles for the magazine) was released a place card had to be added explaining this as test audiences couldn't believe that most of the magazine's staff would be so young.
    Interesting, thanks, but also rather depressing. (Andrew Sullivan was 28 when he took over as editor!!)
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    RobD said:

    slade said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
    I once featured on the front page of the Daily Mail. They got my name and my university wrong. The rest of the story wasn't much better.
    Are you sure it was about you? ;)
    POST OF THE DAY.

    The Daily Jackboot is just such a nasty publication, I only look at it because its free and laugh at their cynical nastiness and deliberate misdirection as to the truth..
    EVIL newspaper.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    TUT HL.. How could you forget RUTH KELLY

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Kelly
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly? She was the very religious one but she never struck me as overly good looking however I shall leave that particular judgement in your hands Mr Llama :)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    Beverley_C said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
    I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
    Beverley_C said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
    I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
    Beverley_C said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
    I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
    Hazel Blears could actually be quite charismatic when she wanted
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly. Allegedly had a fling with David Milliband.

    Some women are blind.

  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Beverley_C said:

    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly? She was the very religious one but she never struck me as overly good looking however I shall leave that particular judgement in your hands Mr Llama :)
    Excluding MP's few can match Cheri Lunghi, one of the most beautiful women EVER.
  • Options
    The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    I miss David Miliband, tbh.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Joe the Biden says there is a chance he'll run and will make his mind up at the end of the summer.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    The_Apocalypse said:

    I miss David Miliband, tbh.

    Why? are you fond of bananas?
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Now the Washington Post is ratcheting up the pressure on Hillary on the email scandal. It seems that the WP and NYT are tag-teaming her - and in an escalating manner. The tone of this piece is not whether Hillary will be found guilty, but how stiff her sentence will be. No wonder the Biden chatter is on the up.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html

    PS This piece compares Hillary's presumed infractions with those of Sandy Berger (and his eventual plea deal of 2 years probation, $50,000 fine, 100 hours community service, no security clearance for 3 years and relinquishing his DC law license). Another paper today compared Hillary's case to Pitraeus' - 2 years probation, $100,000 fine.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Tim_B said:

    Joe the Biden says there is a chance he'll run and will make his mind up at the end of the summer.

    Courting someone else, perhaps?
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Cyclefree said:

    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly. Allegedly had a fling with David Milliband.

    Some women are blind.

    I know .... amazing, isn't it? :):)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    SquareRoot said:

    Beverley_C said:

    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly? She was the very religious one but she never struck me as overly good looking however I shall leave that particular judgement in your hands Mr Llama :)
    Excluding MP's few can match Cheri Lunghi, one of the most beautiful women EVER.
    Ingrid Bergman: beautiful and enchanting.

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Beverley_C said:

    HurstLlama said:

    The one I miss is the little lady who was a member of Opus Dei (allegedly) who was at various times minister for something or other before moving on to become minister for something else. I never listened to a word she said but she was very attractive.

    Ruth Kelly? She was the very religious one but she never struck me as overly good looking however I shall leave that particular judgement in your hands Mr Llama :)
    Saw her once getting on a bus outside Westminster Cathedral I was on. Got off at Westminster.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Tim_B said:

    Joe the Biden says there is a chance he'll run and will make his mind up at the end of the summer.

    MTimT said:

    Now the Washington Post is ratcheting up the pressure on Hillary on the email scandal. It seems that the WP and NYT are tag-teaming her - and in an escalating manner. The tone of this piece is not whether Hillary will be found guilty, but how stiff her sentence will be. No wonder the Biden chatter is on the up.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html

    PS This piece compares Hillary's presumed infractions with those of Sandy Berger (and his eventual plea deal of 2 years probation, $50,000 fine, 100 hours community service, no security clearance for 3 years and relinquishing his DC law license). Another paper today compared Hillary's case to Pitraeus' - 2 years probation, $100,000 fine.

    Do you guys take it in turns?!

    I have a twin brother, I now know how it feels...
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,062
    edited August 2015
    The political betting fantasy football league sign up count is growing nicely - 11 sage pundits so far and TSE.

    Free to enter and get bragging rights over fellow anoraks on here although probably not many of our scottish friends sadly as that's presumably just celtic's 11 in their version of the game?


    http://fantasy.premierleague.com/

    The code to join this private league is 1336513-316355

  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Tim_B said:

    Joe the Biden says there is a chance he'll run and will make his mind up at the end of the summer.

    MTimT said:

    Now the Washington Post is ratcheting up the pressure on Hillary on the email scandal. It seems that the WP and NYT are tag-teaming her - and in an escalating manner. The tone of this piece is not whether Hillary will be found guilty, but how stiff her sentence will be. No wonder the Biden chatter is on the up.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html

    PS This piece compares Hillary's presumed infractions with those of Sandy Berger (and his eventual plea deal of 2 years probation, $50,000 fine, 100 hours community service, no security clearance for 3 years and relinquishing his DC law license). Another paper today compared Hillary's case to Pitraeus' - 2 years probation, $100,000 fine.

    Do you guys take it in turns?!

    I have a twin brother, I now know how it feels...
    My wife is an identical twin, and my mother was also an identical twin.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,642
    Andy Burnham in cricket whites as a schoolboy at Old Trafford
    https://twitter.com/holland_tom?lang=en-gb
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Cyclefree said:

    JEO said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    I've had the same experience with the Economist. Having met a few of their journalists, I find that they are often quite young without any amount of deep thought on an issue. Typically they will write an article after speaking to two sides on the topic, repeating their points, before coming down on the more liberal position, be it economic or social. I don't think I've ever read an article in the magazine where I could not predict their position before starting reading it.
    I find that with most newspaper articles. I have never ever read an article in a mainstream newspaper about some event or matter in which I have been involved that has not been inaccurate to a greater or lesser extent.
    Can you comment on the LIBOR sentencing? Curious as to why 14 years. Seems like an off choice - 2x7 to run consecutively?
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,062
    Burnley fans can of course play too by choosing ex-players now still playing in the PL .... so that's er Trippier at Spurs... and I'm sure there's many many more...
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Tim_B said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:



    Do you guys take it in turns?!

    I have a twin brother, I now know how it feels...

    My wife is an identical twin, and my mother was also an identical twin.
    LOL. The Tims do it again!
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    slade said:

    RobD said:

    slade said:

    MyBurningEars said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Re The Economist:

    Back in the early-mid nineties I was a long term subscriber to the Economist. Then one week they happened to do an article on a subject about which I knew an awful lot, in fact I was something of an expert. The article was riddled with inaccuracies, inaccuracies so bad that even a very modest amount of research would have shown them up as complete tosh and we are talking statements of fact here not opinion. I realised then that if they could be that wrong about one subject they probably were equally wrong about a great many others and that relying on the magazine for any sort of informed comment was stupid. I cancelled my subscription the same day.

    This is a problem with pretty much all journalism, sadly, if there's anything you happen to know about. One of my all-time-faves was a BBC TV news science journalist, who'd just shown the results of a competition for the most breathtaking/artistic images taken with an electron microscope. He lauded how they showed the "beautiful colours of nature". (For those who don't know, electron microscopes can't show optical colours - that's the whole point of them, it lets them look at a level of detail that the wavelength of light just won't let you investigate - so all the images were false colour.)

    Some publications have a cleverer veneer than others but sooner or later the fact hits you that you are reading something scraped together by a 20-something armed mostly with google. If they write well and can make an Oxbridge admissions essay style "clever" argument (think Irwin in the History Boys) then it can mask the issue, but only for so long.
    I once featured on the front page of the Daily Mail. They got my name and my university wrong. The rest of the story wasn't much better.
    Are you sure it was about you? ;)
    Oh yes. They also got a Conservative MP to ask a question in Parliament!
    Now I'm curious! Given that it is all entirely wrong, perhaps you can link without revealing your identity?
  • Options
    flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    edited August 2015
    Beverley_C said:

    HYUFD said:

    MikeK said:

    Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.

    If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
    I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
    ''Hazel Blears could actually be quite charismatic when she wanted''


    Only to Iain Dale. He compared her to a chipmunk.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
  • Options
    flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    JEO said:

    Stories like this show the danger of the uncontrolled immigration at Dover:

    http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Illegal-immigrant-accused-murdering-wife-Bristol/story-27536318-detail/story.html

    We don't have uncontrolled immigration at Dover.
    We have of course always had an illegal immigrant problem for many many decades. Most developed countries do.
  • Options
    flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Melanie Phillips has provided an unlikely new backer for Jeremy Corbyn today, arguing that he offers the best spokesman for a Syriza-like anti-austerity agenda and the best chance for winning back Scotland, as well as a challenge to Cameron by backing BREXIT while Kendall simply offers Torylite and Burnham and Cooper flip-flop
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4515426.ece

    Ken Livingstone, less surprisingly, backs Corbyn too (though he says he backed Healey over Foot in 1980)
    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-jeremy-corbyn-isnt-another-michael-foot--he-can-win-a-general-election-10434758.html

    Corbyn isn't another Foot. Foot was far more accomplished.
    Anyone needing Melanie Phillips to back their argument is on shaky ground.
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,748
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    The political betting fantasy football league sign up count is growing nicely - 11 sage pundits so far and TSE.

    Free to enter and get bragging rights over fellow anoraks on here although probably not many of our scottish friends sadly as that's presumably just celtic's 11 in their version of the game?


    http://fantasy.premierleague.com/

    The code to join this private league is 1336513-316355

    So tempting... although I usually lose enthusiasm mid-season and rapidly fall down the league from that point on. Yup... I'm a Newcastle fan through and through...
  • Options
    Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Off Topic.
    Overheard in my local tonight from two lads playing the quiz machine.
    "I thought Nebraska was in Canada"
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    MTimT said:

    Tim_B said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:



    Do you guys take it in turns?!

    I have a twin brother, I now know how it feels...

    My wife is an identical twin, and my mother was also an identical twin.
    LOL. The Tims do it again!
    There's always room for another Tim :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okh3lwQXSek
Sign In or Register to comment.