politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary Clinton’s good week gets even better

MonikerDiCanio said:

Hillary's health may well come into play.

Dair said:

david_herdson said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

SimonStClare said:

Morning all.

Based on last night’s local election results, the Meacher by-election should be V interesting.

Do you think? Bad night for Labour but poor night for UKIP too. If the local by-elections are any guide then OW&R will be a comfortable Labour hold ahead of the Tories in second on a lowish turnout. There may well be a net swing to the Tories but Labour will spin that as the drop-off of Meacher's personal vote / UKIP voters 'going home'. I'm not sure either argument will hold too much water (how many Tory-inclined voters went for Meacher on a personal level? Were UKIP's voters really ex-Tory?) but once you're into that kind of detail the public's tuned out. Labour won't lose and won't come close to losing so whatever the underlying movements, the media will ignore it, as will politicians looking for a reason to.

However, for psephological nerds, it could tell us a lot about the lie of the land going into next year's local and PCC elections.

UKIP came second in the seat even in May when the Tories won a national majority. I expect both Labour and the Tories to lose vote share, Labour to hold but with their majority down, UKIP up

Yes but UKIP have been down in every election and poll since the GE sometimes by quite large percentages. Haven't they lost all their defences since the GE, except for one hold? They have also lost their one Council.
Labour win easily, Tories 2nd, UKIP third and saved deposit if they're lucky.

No, they'll do better than that. There are still a lot of protest votes and this part of Oldham has a well-established and sizable populist-right section. I'd be surprised to see UKIP drop below 15%. I'd also expect more than three parties to save their deposits.

How are more than three parties going to keep their deposits?

At the GE the hated Liberals got 3.7% and the Greens 1.9%. Corbyn is definitely showing signs of squeezing the Greens and the hated Liberals are unlikely to find any purchase in this sort of area.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I might have to watch I'm a celebrity this year

I'm a Celebrity attempts to lure anti-Corbyn MPs into jungle

Copeland MP Jamie Reed rejects offer to appear on reality TV show but speculation swirls around Simon Danczuk

http://bit.ly/1LR7FJG

I'd much rather see the lovely Karen in the jungle.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, the capitalist rightwing pigdog fascists must be culled! Only then can the People's Party have truly representative left wing heroes to lead the revolution!

Charles said:

frpenkridge said:

One of the controversial issues discussed last night was the shortening of the cenotaph ceremony with Cameron laying the only political wreath. I suggest that a solution nobody could possibly object to is have the wreath laid by the Speaker.
(Also, how about raising tax on sugary products one at a time, budget by budget, finishing, in about 50 year's time with plain chocolate digestive biscuits?)

The Prime Minister represents the country as a whole, regardless of what party he or she comes from.

Why are people trying to make political capital out of this?

JEO said:

CD13 said:

Mr 63,

Amazing that with 300,000,000 Americans to choose from, the surname Bush and Clinton dominates politics. And not just the name - they are sons, brothers and wives.

At least North Korea is honest about its nepotism

Given Bush's floundering, there's obviously a limit to how far nepotism takes you.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

It's more like 4:25 I think

https://twitter.com/clarkemicah/status/657170296529670144

what are we looking at here? A protestor breaks through the police cordon, runs towards or stands close to some protected people and gets tackled by the police?

Am I supposed to be outraged at the civil liberties violation? Or impressed by the efficiency of the police?

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/657477630233587712

The police will have allocated an area for all the protesters for and against.

This one left that area, put herself in close proximity to let's call them high value targets and was then removed by the police.

What on earth is the problem?

Scott_P said:

@MrHarryCole: Innocent man arrested after Tom Watson intervened https://t.co/TrRRe0Qoer

A Tory MP who sparked ridicule after condemning a made-up drug called 'Cake' has been given the job of scrutinising the Government's crackdown on legal highs.

Veteran backbencher David Amess was tricked into appearing on the 1990s comedy show Brass Eye where he was filmed warning people off the dangers of 'Cake' – which he described as 'a big yellow death bullet'.

Mr Amess even asked questions about the made-up drug in Parliament after being taken in by the satirical Channel 4 show.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3285989/Tory-MP-tricked-launching-TV-war-drugs-given-job-scrutinising-government-s-crackdown-DRUGS.html#ixzz3pOCpApca
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

JackW said:

Charles said:

frpenkridge said:

One of the controversial issues discussed last night was the shortening of the cenotaph ceremony with Cameron laying the only political wreath. I suggest that a solution nobody could possibly object to is have the wreath laid by the Speaker.
(Also, how about raising tax on sugary products one at a time, budget by budget, finishing, in about 50 year's time with plain chocolate digestive biscuits?)

The Prime Minister represents the country as a whole, regardless of what party he or she comes from.

Why are people trying to make political capital out of this?

Utter bilge.

HM The Queen represents the country in all its majesty and splendour.

Cameron is head of government and as PM is first among equals as his party representative at the Cenotaph. No change is required.

Tissue_Price said:

taffys said:

''In short: articles like this and appearances by the likes of Ken Clarke last night suggest that, when even the edge cases are not that bad, the tax credits reform is going to be a success despite all the naysaying.''

At last, the real reason this is being opposed tooth and nail by the opposition.

The woman on Question Time appears to be running a staggeringly unsuccessful business and expects the taxpayer to make up for its lack of profitability.

The Tories need to be careful over this, but people aren't *entitled* to work at whatever takes their fancy and trust the state to make up their standard of living accordingly. Plenty of people work at jobs that they barely tolerate or actively detest.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, better or worse than when a member of the Kinnock dynasty asked Cameron and Obama for one [and Mrs Obama was not impressed]?

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Charles said:

frpenkridge said:

One of the controversial issues discussed last night was the shortening of the cenotaph ceremony with Cameron laying the only political wreath. I suggest that a solution nobody could possibly object to is have the wreath laid by the Speaker.
(Also, how about raising tax on sugary products one at a time, budget by budget, finishing, in about 50 year's time with plain chocolate digestive biscuits?)

The Prime Minister represents the country as a whole, regardless of what party he or she comes from.

Why are people trying to make political capital out of this?

Utter bilge.

HM The Queen represents the country in all its majesty and splendour.

Cameron is head of government and as PM is first among equals as his party representative at the Cenotaph. No change is required.

My reading is that at least some of the impetus for this has come from the Palace. The Queen is 89 and the Duke of Edinburgh, 94, even if he looks at least a decade younger.

The thread a few weeks ago on Corbyn's dress choice for the occasion showed how the formal ceremony has expanded over recent years. Not that long ago there were only three party leaders who laid wreaths and three or four senior royals. Now there are phalanxes of both. Change has already taken place and a little trimming back, particularly given the advanced ages of Liz'n'Phil is not out of order.

I don't agree that Cameron is simply first among equals. He represents the Government; the other parties represent the Opposition. While I personally preferred the longer version, which I hope can be reverted to in due course, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the shorter one.

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Charles said:

frpenkridge said:

One of the controversial issues discussed last night was the shortening of the cenotaph ceremony with Cameron laying the only political wreath. I suggest that a solution nobody could possibly object to is have the wreath laid by the Speaker.
(Also, how about raising tax on sugary products one at a time, budget by budget, finishing, in about 50 year's time with plain chocolate digestive biscuits?)

The Prime Minister represents the country as a whole, regardless of what party he or she comes from.

Why are people trying to make political capital out of this?

Utter bilge.

HM The Queen represents the country in all its majesty and splendour.

Cameron is head of government and as PM is first among equals as his party representative at the Cenotaph. No change is required.

My reading is that at least some of the impetus for this has come from the Palace. The Queen is 89 and the Duke of Edinburgh, 94, even if he looks at least a decade younger.

The thread a few weeks ago on Corbyn's dress choice for the occasion showed how the formal ceremony has expanded over recent years. Not that long ago there were only three party leaders who laid wreaths and three or four senior royals. Now there are phalanxes of both. Change has already taken place and a little trimming back, particularly given the advanced ages of Liz'n'Phil is not out of order.

I don't agree that Cameron is simply first among equals. He represents the Government; the other parties represent the Opposition. While I personally preferred the longer version, which I hope can be reverted to in due course, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the shorter one.

I refer the Honourable Herders to the likely outcry if this change had occurred during the Blair years. The outcry from Conservatives would have been louder than some of TSE's shoes.

The time taken by the politicians to lay their wreaths is negligible but the symbolism is not.

Cameron would do well to advise that such changes are not merited and recommend that the present arrangements are kept in place.

JackW said:

david_herdson said:

JackW said:

Charles said:

frpenkridge said:

One of the controversial issues discussed last night was the shortening of the cenotaph ceremony with Cameron laying the only political wreath. I suggest that a solution nobody could possibly object to is have the wreath laid by the Speaker.
(Also, how about raising tax on sugary products one at a time, budget by budget, finishing, in about 50 year's time with plain chocolate digestive biscuits?)

The Prime Minister represents the country as a whole, regardless of what party he or she comes from.

Why are people trying to make political capital out of this?

Utter bilge.

HM The Queen represents the country in all its majesty and splendour.

Cameron is head of government and as PM is first among equals as his party representative at the Cenotaph. No change is required.

My reading is that at least some of the impetus for this has come from the Palace. The Queen is 89 and the Duke of Edinburgh, 94, even if he looks at least a decade younger.

The thread a few weeks ago on Corbyn's dress choice for the occasion showed how the formal ceremony has expanded over recent years. Not that long ago there were only three party leaders who laid wreaths and three or four senior royals. Now there are phalanxes of both. Change has already taken place and a little trimming back, particularly given the advanced ages of Liz'n'Phil is not out of order.

I don't agree that Cameron is simply first among equals. He represents the Government; the other parties represent the Opposition. While I personally preferred the longer version, which I hope can be reverted to in due course, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the shorter one.

I refer the Honourable Herders to the likely outcry if this change had occurred during the Blair years. The outcry from Conservatives would have been louder than some of TSE's shoes.

The time taken by the politicians to lay their wreaths is negligible but the symbolism is not.

Cameron would do well to advise that such changes are not merited and recommend that the present arrangements are kept in place.

Bizarre colour schemes, filthy bathrooms and someone sleeping in a messy bedroom are just some of the unbelievably bad pictures posted by estate agents in their misguided bid to sell properties.

Bathroom walls covered ceiling to floor in mould, a swimming pool full of green algae and a living room crammed with oriental souvenirs including life-size statues and several plants are examples of the bizarre images designed to promote the properties.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3286041/Bizarre-frightening-just-plain-hilarious-unbelievably-bad-estate-agent-photos-buyers-NOT-wanting-in.html#ixzz3pOJ1nls8

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, as is known, I am upright man of impeccable moral standing. There's nothing desirable about a mostly drunk fornicating thief, endowed with all the loyalty of a nymphomaniac and the moral consistency of a latter day Roman emperor.

Mr. Dodd, thanks. I wrote the character in the reverse manner (ie gave him a long list of vices and then tried to find one or two virtues [he's nice to horses]). Fun but tricky to write a selfish, conniving git in a likeable way.

Ahem. I should be writing [serious stuff] now.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Sugar Tax

Farage made the point last night that whether a ginger beer costs 65p or 75p he would still buy it, but what stopped him was finding out there were 14 teaspoons full of sugar in each can

I found the protein shakes I was drinking contained 12 spoons of sugar and changed to a healthier and more expensive brand

So maybe a simple symbol of s spoon with a number next to rather than a tax would be best .

Good suggestion!

I look at calories on the front when its there but that's about it; the sugar number (and other numbers) is fairly incomprehensible and generally ignored. Having all pre-packaged food and drink have a "teaspoons of sugar" per serving would make sense, since that's a unit of measurement easily understood.

Plato_Says said:

These are fab - I loved the stag do.

Bizarre colour schemes, filthy bathrooms and someone sleeping in a messy bedroom are just some of the unbelievably bad pictures posted by estate agents in their misguided bid to sell properties.

Bathroom walls covered ceiling to floor in mould, a swimming pool full of green algae and a living room crammed with oriental souvenirs including life-size statues and several plants are examples of the bizarre images designed to promote the properties.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3286041/Bizarre-frightening-just-plain-hilarious-unbelievably-bad-estate-agent-photos-buyers-NOT-wanting-in.html#ixzz3pOJ1nls8

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

So maybe a simple symbol of s spoon with a number next to rather than a tax would be best .

That is a brilliantly simple idea!

Cromwell said:

HYUFD said:

Clinton v Trump seems most likely. Even if Carson wins Iowa Trump should be second and then win New Hampshire. Sanders may win New Hampshire but Hillary will win overall

===============
I doubt it ; she will surely be the Dem candidate and the early favorite but this time next year I expect the republicans to be surging to victory ....Hillary doesn't have the benefit of incumbency and after two Democratic terms the odds favour a Republican .Futhermore , Hillary has such a smug , preening sense of entitlement that will surely tempt fate ; she is a very devisive figure that generates both love and hate and the very thought of her and Bill back in the Whitehouse will turn many voters off ...she reminds me of an aging actress or rock star who cannot accept that she is just not wanted anymore ; rather like Madonna prancing around on the stage like she did thirty years ago
I suspect that she will be defeated by a young dynamic Republican from a hard scrabble background who can match her in debates ; indeed it is ironic that the traditional roles could be reversed and instead of a rich white establishment Republican being matched against a young charasmatic Democrat you may instead have a rich white establishment Hillary being defeated by a Kenedy-esque Republican by the name of MARCO RUBIO !

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, legal highs seem very difficult. Anything effective may be so broad that the legislation traps other, perfectly legitimate (as it were) drugs. Anything specific can be, and has been, easily side-stepped by tweaking the chemical composition of the drug.

Of course, if some people weren't bloody muppets, taking weird, unknown drugs with unknown effects, this wouldn't be an issue.

Never taken drugs myself (and very rarely drink), but legal highs seem far more foolish to me than even 'established' drugs, where you have a better idea of what they're supposed to do (although bad batches and being cut with rat poison remains a problem).

richardDodd said:

Does the Labour Party have Fridays off..only one member on the opposition benches for the defence debate..