politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two CON losses – one to LAB the other to the SNP in latest

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Sorry... already committed to have lunch in Switzerland that day.

Just instruct your jet pilot that you want to be back for drinks in Manchester. The airport has a Metro line to the city centre.

Hmh. I've had BA hold a plane for me the past (needed to get home for my wife's birthday and my connecting flight was delayed), but never tried a diversion before

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

ThomasNashe said:

Anorak said:

JEO said:

Anorak said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/11907219/Zac-Goldsmith-challenges-David-Cameron-over-Europe-Heathrow-and-housing-after-winning-mayoral-nomination.html

Damn it: I want a London Mayor who's in favour of Heathrow expansion.

Me too, but what this does is put a new hub on the agenda. I would like to see a lengthening of the existing runways to temporarily allow increased capacity and eventually we build a massive fuck off 6 runway airport on the site of Luton. Luton is a shit hole anyway, it would be greatly improved with a noisy airport.

I'd slap it in the nice empty area between Reading and Oxford. Access by M4 and M40 and M25 plus a goodly number of rail lines within striking distance. You could get tens of thousands of well-connected homes on the site of the old Heathrow.

[Luton airport is perched on a hill; it's why the runway has never been extended. Prohibitively expensive earthworks required. But you're right about it being an utter, utter, sh1thole.]

There's a map here of empty spots:

http://www.beacon-dodsworth.co.uk/uploads/images/blogs/SE3L60.jpg

I've canvassed in Luton. Much of it is downtrodden but there are some surprisingly nice bits.

"downtrodden"

Are you an estate agent? Presumably you think Stonehenge "requires some modernisation".

I live in an area of London that estate agents refer to as 'Chiswick borders'. Everyone else calls it Acton.

I always liked St. Reatham (Streatham) and South Chelsea (Battersea)

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

I can't believe they would allow that because although theoretically elegant, nine tenths of the shadow cabinet would resign, they would have to go quite far down the list to re-fill the positions and by that time electability would register a minus number. I just can't believe anyone would stand for it.

It is annoying because we are supposed to have some kind of grown-up politics in this country and the whole thing is becoming a joke.

Charles said:

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Sorry... already committed to have lunch in Switzerland that day.

Just instruct your jet pilot that you want to be back for drinks in Manchester. The airport has a Metro line to the city centre.

Hmh. I've had BA hold a plane for me the past (needed to get home for my wife's birthday and my connecting flight was delayed), but never tried a diversion before

On my girlfriends 21st birthday (we went to see Celine Dion at Wembley) I got the driver of the last Liverpool St-Shenfield train to make an unscheduled stop at Romford so we could get home to Hornchurch

We're not so different you and me!

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

Evening all

Not really all that difficult. Corbyn has gone out of his way to emphasise the primacy of the Party decision-making process so if the Party were to back Trident renewal he'd go along with it (despite his personal view) because it was the view of the party.

If you're worrying about whether a Prime Minister Corbyn would actually push the aforementioned button, we're so far from that it's not worth considering.

As I also posed this morning, could a Conservative Party leader in favour of staying in the EU remain leader if the Party voted to leave ? Could a Cabinet Minister in favour of leaving the EU remain in a Cabinet led by a Prime Minister who was determined to remain ?

At what point does collective responsibility become incompatible with personal conviction ?

I see that Go Sober for October hasn't got much traction on pb.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/02/george-osborne-nfl-american-football-team-london

rah rah rah George... He knows how to quarterback a game.

New Zealand Pinot noir with lamb says I.

"Off topic" i.e. betting post
I like 2016 Democratic Ticket Male-Female @ 7/1. Hard to see a man picking another man if he is responsible for denying Hillary Clinton the first female presidency.

TOPPING said:

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

It's the most use anyone gets out of them.

antifrank said:

I see that Go Sober for October hasn't got much traction on pb.

No kidding - it's either teetotalers or hedonists round here.

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

EPG said:

"Off topic" i.e. betting post
I like 2016 Democratic Ticket Male-Female @ 7/1. Hard to see a man picking another man if he is responsible for denying Hillary Clinton the first female presidency.

Why? Obama denied it to Hillary and chose Biden. What's changed?

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Sorry... already committed to have lunch in Switzerland that day.

Just instruct your jet pilot that you want to be back for drinks in Manchester. The airport has a Metro line to the city centre.

Hmh. I've had BA hold a plane for me the past (needed to get home for my wife's birthday and my connecting flight was delayed), but never tried a diversion before

What are you doing on BA? I expected you to have a learjet.

Funny the number of people who say that!

But I guess I'm just cheap

Charles said:

MaxPB said:

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

FWIW, at my foundation we could easily get interns to work for free as the two internships that we offer are like hen's teeth for aspirational curators.

But we want them to work as hard as our junior team members, so we pay them the same.

That's how it should be. At least the minimum wage or living wage is acceptable. Unpaid internships are not right and unsurprisingly it's on the left where they are most prevalent.

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

It's the most use anyone gets out of them.

The entire purpose of having them is not to need to use them and in doing so they serve their use. If only one side has nukes then they can be used (ask Japan) or invaded (ask Ukraine). If both sides have nukes then they don't need to be used, so long as they might be.

Rubbish. They are not to be used in the event of an invasion.

JEO said:

EPG said:

"Off topic" i.e. betting post
I like 2016 Democratic Ticket Male-Female @ 7/1. Hard to see a man picking another man if he is responsible for denying Hillary Clinton the first female presidency.

Who would be the VP options for the Democrats if Biden or O'Malley gets it? Elizabeth Warren?

Yes Biden-Warren. I don't credit O'Malley at all and view this bet as a roundabout Biden bet acknowledging Democrats' critical dependence on feminist votes.

EPG said:

MaxPB said:

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

I wonder why right-wing think tanks have more money?

It doesn't matter. It's the principle that the left bangs on about unpaid internships being awful and it seems to be their bloody side which has the lion's share of them.

chestnut said:

Michael Foot - May 1983

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnjyAcHUkS4

Tory 48%.
Pass the smelling salts!

EPG said:

MaxPB said:

EPG said:

MaxPB said:

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

I wonder why right-wing think tanks have more money?

It doesn't matter. It's the principle that the left bangs on about unpaid internships being awful and it seems to be their bloody side which has the lion's share of them.

Not many on the left bang on about it. Most of those who do don't hire unpaid interns. It does matter if there is more money backing one side of politics than the other, but nobody on PB seems to like it when money in politics is raised.

Didn't the de facto leader of the left, Ed Miliband, bang on about it before the election?

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

It's the most use anyone gets out of them.

The entire purpose of having them is not to need to use them and in doing so they serve their use. If only one side has nukes then they can be used (ask Japan) or invaded (ask Ukraine). If both sides have nukes then they don't need to be used, so long as they might be.

Rubbish. They are not to be used in the event of an invasion.

I know you're Russia's biggest cheerleader but do you think Russia would still have been so quick to invade Ukraine if Ukraine still had its own nuclear missiles to defend itself?

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Funny the number of people who say that!

But I guess I'm just cheap

D*rn it Charles. That is simply not good enough. Get the Learjet sorted please and I will dust off my licence and see if I can still steer the thing.

There are times that NetJets does appeal!

But, to be honest, premium economy is fine...

Roger said:

OT

I've heard some illogical garbage from the Americans-not least Bush over Iraq-but this latest takes some beating. The Russians who seem to be the only country trying an effective intervention in Syria are being accused of attacking the 'wrong' rebels.

You really couldn't make it up! Anyone who thought Rumsfeld's statements were indecipherable should listen to Obama's current spokesman

You don't see a difference between ISIS and the other rebels?

Beverley_C said:

Moses_ said:

Beverley_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

Plato_Says said:

And on cue http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11907718/Dozens-of-bodies-to-go-unburied-because-of-gravedigger-shortage.html

Dozens of bodies will not be buried by a council in Staffordshire this month because of a shortage of grave diggers.

The Labour-run Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council has told grieving relatives that no one can be buried in any of their eight cemeteries for three weeks, blaming funding cuts.

The news has echoes of the Winter of Discontent in the late 1970s when bodies went unburied because of strike action by council workers.

Smacks of a Labour council playing politics.....

They want to be careful in case this is one of those lefty places where the cemetery does vote

Actually I think these are the "non voters" *cough* that Corby is targeting. TBF he's way behind the times Tower Hamlets have been doing it for years.

Do not forget the immortality immorality that is Postal Voting. I am amazed that has not been made illegal except for medical exceptions.

Indeed it should be for only very specific cases as you say.

It was originally done I think to get more people to engage with the voting process. It certainly achieved its aim, not sure the originators had dead people in mind though.

The process is rife for fraud though and as has been regularly pointed out on this forum, if you couldn't be bothered to go a short walk to the local polling station every now and again then you don't deserve the vote.

Charles said:

Beverley_C said:

Charles said:

Funny the number of people who say that!

But I guess I'm just cheap

D*rn it Charles. That is simply not good enough. Get the Learjet sorted please and I will dust off my licence and see if I can still steer the thing.

There are times that NetJets does appeal!

But, to be honest, premium economy is fine...

It makes those op-ups even more enjoyable!

DecrepitJohnL said:

MTimT said:

This is yet another bad piece of news in a 6 months of continuous bad news for Hillary - she is bleeding support from Blacks. From the graphs, Biden would be the biggest beneficiary if he chose to enter the fray:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/01/hillary-clintons-support-from-black-voters-plunges-in-a-new-poll/

Even if the poll is correct, Hillary is still massively ahead. That might not be good news for Democrats if she really is bleeding support, because she will be candidate simply because there is no realistic alternative. We've seen Biden run before, in primaries and as VP: he wasn't very good at it.

Is the sudden drop genuine? Has something happened we've missed?

The drop in her support generally is genuine - pretty much all of the polling series has her dropping 20%. That still leaves her in the lead, but the direction is wrong and there is no sign that it is slowing down or reversing yet.

Roger said:

OT

I've heard some illogical garbage from the Americans-not least Bush over Iraq-but this latest takes some beating. The Russians who seem to be the only country trying an effective intervention in Syria are being accused of attacking the 'wrong' rebels.

You really couldn't make it up! Anyone who thought Rumsfeld's statements were indecipherable should listen to Obama's current spokesman

I see the latest Russian rebel targets are 6 years old. Oh well nothing like catching them early eh?

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

It's the most use anyone gets out of them.

The entire purpose of having them is not to need to use them and in doing so they serve their use. If only one side has nukes then they can be used (ask Japan) or invaded (ask Ukraine). If both sides have nukes then they don't need to be used, so long as they might be.

Rubbish. They are not to be used in the event of an invasion.

I know you're Russia's biggest cheerleader but do you think Russia would still have been so quick to invade Ukraine if Ukraine still had its own nuclear missiles to defend itself?

I've heard from many friends in Poland that one got noticed in a big way. I wonder what some here will make of the Chinese nuke plant investment that is planned for Poland, when it is formally announced?

JEO said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

JEO said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

slightly closer to topic, I simply do not understand how Lab can square having a policy of renewing Trident, and a Leader who won't push the button.

Well of course they can't. But they didn't sign up in their tens of thousands for Jezza only for him to perform the mother of all u-turns.

It is simply a logical impossibility - either policy must be no nukes and Jezza stays leader, or nukes and he goes.

There simply is no grey area. My (new) hero Stevie K got this, Dan noted it the other day (after we had all batted it around on here), and I still think it has the ability to dethrone him.

I mused upon this last night...

Is it possible that they can renew it, even if JC is leader and wont press the button, if JC says "I accept my successor may want to have it, but it wont be used while I am boss"

Then the party could depose him if push came to... "push"

Or they could have it as a very expensive public works program for employment, which is why the unions like it.

What is also irritating (and I haven't even hit the gin yet) is that the Unions seem to support Trident because of the jobs. Nothing about security of the United Kingdom in an ever more dangerous world, but effing jobs. That seems to have been the sole criterion. As though if Jezza said they could be automatically transferred at the same pay, conditions, etc, to digging and then filling in holes, the Unions would be happy and ditch our nuclear capability.

It's the most use anyone gets out of them.

The entire purpose of having them is not to need to use them and in doing so they serve their use. If only one side has nukes then they can be used (ask Japan) or invaded (ask Ukraine). If both sides have nukes then they don't need to be used, so long as they might be.

Rubbish. They are not to be used in the event of an invasion.

I know you're Russia's biggest cheerleader but do you think Russia would still have been so quick to invade Ukraine if Ukraine still had its own nuclear missiles to defend itself?

Russia didn't invade Ukraine. Those were Ukrainian rebels!

You're forgetting the Russian paratroopers who decided en bloc to go on holiday to Ukraine. It was wonderful how the army let them take their tanks to get around.

Malmesbury said:

MTimT said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

MTimT said:

This is yet another bad piece of news in a 6 months of continuous bad news for Hillary - she is bleeding support from Blacks. From the graphs, Biden would be the biggest beneficiary if he chose to enter the fray:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/01/hillary-clintons-support-from-black-voters-plunges-in-a-new-poll/

Even if the poll is correct, Hillary is still massively ahead. That might not be good news for Democrats if she really is bleeding support, because she will be candidate simply because there is no realistic alternative. We've seen Biden run before, in primaries and as VP: he wasn't very good at it.

Is the sudden drop genuine? Has something happened we've missed?

The drop in her support generally is genuine - pretty much all of the polling series has her dropping 20%. That still leaves her in the lead, but the direction is wrong and there is no sign that it is slowing down or reversing yet.

The real killer is that her support is thin *within* the core Democrat party. Too many people sound like they are holding their noses to vote for her...

Plus when the primaries kickoff, and the comedy candidates such as Trump drop out, that leaves her very vulnerable to facing a fresh face from the Republicans, and (even more likely) a fresh face from inside her own party.

What price Obama at this point 8 years back?

Indeed, The reason I highlighted this poll, even though it is just one poll, is that the black vote represents Hillary's firewall. If it falls, she is in real trouble everywhere, not just in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That Biden is recorded as doing better than her with the black community must be truly increasing the pressure on him to enter. And, no, he is not a great candidate. But at this point, he is certainly better than any in the race, Hillary included.

MTimT said:

Malmesbury said:

MTimT said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

MTimT said:

This is yet another bad piece of news in a 6 months of continuous bad news for Hillary - she is bleeding support from Blacks. From the graphs, Biden would be the biggest beneficiary if he chose to enter the fray:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/01/hillary-clintons-support-from-black-voters-plunges-in-a-new-poll/

Even if the poll is correct, Hillary is still massively ahead. That might not be good news for Democrats if she really is bleeding support, because she will be candidate simply because there is no realistic alternative. We've seen Biden run before, in primaries and as VP: he wasn't very good at it.

Is the sudden drop genuine? Has something happened we've missed?

The drop in her support generally is genuine - pretty much all of the polling series has her dropping 20%. That still leaves her in the lead, but the direction is wrong and there is no sign that it is slowing down or reversing yet.

The real killer is that her support is thin *within* the core Democrat party. Too many people sound like they are holding their noses to vote for her...

Plus when the primaries kickoff, and the comedy candidates such as Trump drop out, that leaves her very vulnerable to facing a fresh face from the Republicans, and (even more likely) a fresh face from inside her own party.

What price Obama at this point 8 years back?

Indeed, The reason I highlighted this poll, even though it is just one poll, is that the black vote represents Hillary's firewall. If it falls, she is in real trouble everywhere, not just in Iowa and New Hampshire.

That Biden is recorded as doing better than her with the black community must be truly increasing the pressure on him to enter. And, no, he is not a great candidate. But at this point, he is certainly better than any in the race, Hillary included.

I could see Biden as a place marker until the primaries create another candidate from the outsiders - nothing more....

Beverley_C said:

MaxPB said:

How's this for hypocrisy. My girlfriend has been applying for internships at think tanks and whatnot over the last few months. Unbelievably none on the left offer pay beyond expenses, those on the right offer either the national minimum wage or even the London living wage. There are some exceptions of course but that is the current pattern.

Not politics but... my daughter was looking at doing a year out in a science based industry and was told that places were available but she had to fund her own costs - there would be no wages or allowances. I told her to skip it and go straight to her final year as only a fool works for nothing.

When I was a student the year out wages were enough to cover rent, food and bus fares. We lived three or four to a flat and survived on low cost shopping but it made the year doable.

The problems with the minimum wage law!!! If you are doing something largely for your own training/experience, then you will likely be only be contributing marginally to the organisation, therefor likely to only be paid very little, when you make paying very little illegal, you are left with nothing, i.e. unpaid internships.

You can not gait paid more than the value you create (at least not in the long run)

But government can stop you getting paid at all!! (by stopping you create value)

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - while unfortunately also making it a long way away from the people who want to use it, and needing to build lots of new infrastructure (roads, railways, freight forwarding centres, maintenance facilities, hotels.) Oh yes, and if it's a long way from people, then it'll be difficult to get the 10s of thousands of people who need to work there and in the necessary support businesses.

(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people which given Heathrow is already roughly the size of London inside the Circle Line, is going to be ruiniously expensive, unless you build it in the Thames Estuary (which would be my first choice.)

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport and now have to deal with the noise from an airport even larger than Heathrow (as well as associated disruption associated with all the activity that surrounds an airport). (And if there aren't many of these people it's because of (1), and if there are, then it's (2) all over again.)

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. All the alternatives have costs. I think "Boris Island" is the best idea; it will bring economic renewal to somewhere that needs it, the land would be cheap, and it would be convenient for business in London. But if that isn't going to fly (sorry), then Heathrow expansion is probably the best option. Not least because most people who bought property there did so in full knowledge that there was an airport there, and there is excellent transport (Heathrow Express, Tube, M25, M4, Crossrail).

rcs1000 said:

JEO said:

The problem with Heathrow is that hundreds of thousands of people are affected by noise pollution. Once you assign a price to that in terms of lost welfare, the economics of expansion don't work.

If we built a new airport somewhere else, we would also free up a lot of land to solve London's housing crisis.

Yes, I agree with that.

The problem is that building a new airport somewhere else involves one of three painful choices:

(1) Building it away from population centres to minimise disruption and noise pollution - ...
(2) Building it somewhere more convenient, but paying to move affected people ....

(3) Screwing over people who bought houses where there was no existing airport ...

This is a classic example of something where this no perfect option. ... ...

lf you massively extend Heathrow or build elsewhere on new greenfeld 'dry' land then you are faced with demolishing houses and rehousing people. Where are these new houses going to be built? And built in numbers on top of the new houses we already need.
Boris lsland or some such is on reclaimed land.
We really need to seriously stop playing political musical chairs with this.

As for Heathrow and people already knowing it is there - we also have a vaguely decent motorway upgrade. There is also all the other airport infrastructure built around it.
Now is not the time for cost benefits and business cases none of this is relevant; now is the time for action and long long long term development.
Let me repeat my opinion.
Extend 1 Heathrow runway to allow double operation of it and and make it a more reliable airport with just a small legally enforced increase in capacity.
Build additional runways at both Stansted and Gatwick and give the area the increased capacity it will need.
Take a good look at an 6 runway (minimum - 10?) 'Boris lsland' - and be ready to build it and its links.
Come on be brave and determined.

''We take off on this new journey because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new markets to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people''
''There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in airports as yet. Its Duty Frees are hostile to us all. Its monorail route deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful land reclamation may never come again.''
''We choose to go and build these runways in this lifetime and do the HS2 thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our protest movements and lobby groups, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ...''