politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GOP Race: It’s hard now to see beyond Trump, Cruz or Ru
Comments
-
Thank you, could be some value. The Lib lady has got experience as Assembly Member and is not like Brian Pillock who ran last time that couldn't stop going on about himself in terms of the Police binned him and he's gay, so a minority, and picked on, and hated. Him, him, him! Not a single policy from him.JBriskin said:
Just checked - not on Betfair - but those who agree with NPXMP that it's a 'toss up' should in theory being backing Zac at currently 2.42Dixie said:
Also, O/T, the only worthwhile betting on Mayoral race will be for 3rd place. Galloway, Libs, UKIP all evenly matched. Is there a market for this?
Also, O/T, 2nd preferences making it very hard to determine winner in main event too.0 -
Do the cynics include the 40% of Junior Doctors who worked today. This figure must have surprised many and indicates the Junior Doctors are not by any means all signed up to the BMA's agendawatford30 said:
Another load of sanctimonious guff. You make it sound as if they're forced into medicine at gunpoint, rather than choose to enter such a rewarding career voluntarily.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.0 -
Interesting.Sean_F said:
IMO second preferences only matter if the margin on first preferences is 2% or less.Dixie said:O/T, bumped into Junior Doctors at Hammersmith Tube giving their sob story, which I didn't accept. Apparently, it is about safety, not money!! Utter b*llocks. Interestingly, a couple of Corbynistas there started to give me a hard time. I just asked how they got a day off from their public school! Didn't like it.
Also, O/T, the only worthwhile betting on Mayoral race will be for 3rd place. Galloway, Libs, UKIP all evenly matched. Is there a market for this?
Also, O/T, 2nd preferences making it very hard to determine winner in main event too.0 -
For all the talk today, I still can't work out if they're on strike because they feel they're being overworked and are tired, or because they want the right to be able to work 90 hours a week at overtime rates?Dixie said:
Totally agree. It's what I told them today. If you want to earn a lot more than average wages you have to put in extra effort.watford30 said:
Boo Hoo. You make it sound as if they're forced to into medicine as a career.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.0 -
The new NHS contract does seem to be about making the workload more manageable and reducing the amount of overwork.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.
"On safety, the existing contract provides inadequate safeguards for doctors, too many of whom still work unsafe hours. It allows work of up to 91 hours in any one week and to exceed other working time limits. There are insufficient safeguards against consecutive long shifts...
The new contract proposals will improve patient safety - with safeguards introduced in relation to hours worked, breaks between shifts, and accountability and oversight. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-information-from-letter-to-all-junior-doctors/summary-detail-on-safety-training-and-pay
0 -
At the moment even with perfect transfer between non-Cruz/Trump candidates it won't happen. Nor, with Trump likely to win in NH and Cruz or Trump in Iowa, do I see that changing much down the line.Richard_Nabavi said:
If we assume that Trump and Cruz do well in Iowa and/or NH and thus remain leading contenders, then at least one of Rubio, Bush, and Christie will also stay in the game and will seek to hoover up establishment support. Eventually that will get winnowed down to just one establishment figure, but maybe not yet unless one of the three clearly takes an early lead over the other two.Pulpstar said:Clinton can come back from a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rubio can't imo. As for Jeb Bush...
That being said it's Bush I've sold most. Equally if he doggedly stays in the race (based on funds) we'll split the establishment vote further - and still won't win.0 -
Depends on your definition of 'whacko'.tyson said:Hmmmm- I cannot recall one whacko being elected POTUS, or VP for that matter
taffys said:Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.
America is not Britain, not by a long chalk. Politicians lazily dismissed as lunatics here and eminently electable there.
Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney were not great Presidents / Vice Presidents but also not in the same league as Trump for whackiness.0 -
The doctors say the opposite... frankly I have no idea.JonathanD said:
The new NHS contract does seem to be about making the workload more manageable and reducing the amount of overwork.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.
"On safety, the existing contract provides inadequate safeguards for doctors, too many of whom still work unsafe hours. It allows work of up to 91 hours in any one week and to exceed other working time limits. There are insufficient safeguards against consecutive long shifts...
The new contract proposals will improve patient safety - with safeguards introduced in relation to hours worked, breaks between shifts, and accountability and oversight. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-information-from-letter-to-all-junior-doctors/summary-detail-on-safety-training-and-pay0 -
As car as I can tell they're getting very grumpy (understandably somewhat) about not getting overtime rates at weekends - they're on the losing side of history on this one I feel, we all used to love our double-time at Morrisons on a Sunday but it's anachronistic.Sandpit said:
For all the talk today, I still can't work out if they're on strike because they feel they're being overworked and are tired, or because they want the right to be able to work 100 hours a week at overtime rates?Dixie said:
Totally agree. It's what I told them today. If you want to earn a lot more than average wages you have to put in extra effort.watford30 said:
Boo Hoo. You make it sound as if they're forced to into medicine as a career.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.0 -
Have you been responsible for out of hours critical care for hours at a time, covering absent colleagues who cannot cope with that kind of stress. Thought so.
We want our hospitals to be safe places? We want our relatives and closest and dearest to be well taken care of when they are their most vulnerable. This is what the doctors are striking for....If the people at the coalface don't care about the sick, then who does. We should bloody well listen to them instead of dismiss them as Corbynites, or selfish money seekers.watford30 said:
Another load of sanctimonious guff. You make it sound as if they're forced into medicine at gunpoint, rather than choose to enter such a rewarding career voluntarily.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.0 -
Try thisTheWhiteRabbit said:The doctors say the opposite... frankly I have no idea.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/testing-their-patients0 -
I am inclined agree with Dixie unless Galloway does very well in which case the second prefs could favour Khan more than that. But as GG votes will come mainly from Khan getting some of them back again is nothing great.Dixie said:
Interesting.Sean_F said:
IMO second preferences only matter if the margin on first preferences is 2% or less.Dixie said:O/T, bumped into Junior Doctors at Hammersmith Tube giving their sob story, which I didn't accept. Apparently, it is about safety, not money!! Utter b*llocks. Interestingly, a couple of Corbynistas there started to give me a hard time. I just asked how they got a day off from their public school! Didn't like it.
Also, O/T, the only worthwhile betting on Mayoral race will be for 3rd place. Galloway, Libs, UKIP all evenly matched. Is there a market for this?
Also, O/T, 2nd preferences making it very hard to determine winner in main event too.0 -
Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
More hand wringing nonsense on a par with your tear stained posts about desperate immigrants sullying the streets and piazzas of Florence.tyson said:Have you been responsible for out of hours critical care for hours at a time, covering absent colleagues who cannot cope with that kind of stress. Thought so.
We want our hospitals to be safe places? We want our relatives and closest and dearest to be well taken care of when they are their most vulnerable. This is what the doctors are striking for....If the people at the coalface don't care about the sick, then who does. We should bloody well listen to them instead of dismiss them as Corbynites, or selfish money seekers.watford30 said:
Another load of sanctimonious guff. You make it sound as if they're forced into medicine at gunpoint, rather than choose to enter such a rewarding career voluntarily.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.
Perhaps you can answer Sandpit below. Is the dispute about hours worked, or being paid less for overtime?0 -
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.0 -
It's the peoples NHS - every day is a day of worship.tyson said:Have you been responsible for out of hours critical care for hours at a time, covering absent colleagues who cannot cope with that kind of stress. Thought so.
We want our hospitals to be safe places? We want our relatives and closest and dearest to be well taken care of when they are their most vulnerable. This is what the doctors are striking for....If the people at the coalface don't care about the sick, then who does. We should bloody well listen to them instead of dismiss them as Corbynites, or selfish money seekers.watford30 said:
Another load of sanctimonious guff. You make it sound as if they're forced into medicine at gunpoint, rather than choose to enter such a rewarding career voluntarily.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.0 -
I do not see us getting down to just one Establishment candidate until delegate allocation switches from proportional to winner takes all, mid-March. After Super Tuesday, we'll definitely have the (almost final) winnowing.TheWhiteRabbit said:
At the moment even with perfect transfer between non-Cruz/Trump candidates it won't happen. Nor, with Trump likely to win in NH and Cruz or Trump in Iowa, do I see that changing much down the line.Richard_Nabavi said:
If we assume that Trump and Cruz do well in Iowa and/or NH and thus remain leading contenders, then at least one of Rubio, Bush, and Christie will also stay in the game and will seek to hoover up establishment support. Eventually that will get winnowed down to just one establishment figure, but maybe not yet unless one of the three clearly takes an early lead over the other two.Pulpstar said:Clinton can come back from a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rubio can't imo. As for Jeb Bush...
That being said it's Bush I've sold most. Equally if he doggedly stays in the race (based on funds) we'll split the establishment vote further - and still won't win.0 -
Good ol' Jeb Bush polling just enough to stop Rubio getting all the establishment votes, but not quite badly enough to drop out.MTimT said:
I do not see us getting down to just one Establishment candidate until delegate allocation switches from proportional to winner takes all, mid-March. After Super Tuesday, we'll definitely have the (almost final) winnowing.TheWhiteRabbit said:
At the moment even with perfect transfer between non-Cruz/Trump candidates it won't happen. Nor, with Trump likely to win in NH and Cruz or Trump in Iowa, do I see that changing much down the line.Richard_Nabavi said:
If we assume that Trump and Cruz do well in Iowa and/or NH and thus remain leading contenders, then at least one of Rubio, Bush, and Christie will also stay in the game and will seek to hoover up establishment support. Eventually that will get winnowed down to just one establishment figure, but maybe not yet unless one of the three clearly takes an early lead over the other two.Pulpstar said:Clinton can come back from a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rubio can't imo. As for Jeb Bush...
That being said it's Bush I've sold most. Equally if he doggedly stays in the race (based on funds) we'll split the establishment vote further - and still won't win.0 -
None of the listed were whacko. Nixon had oddities and was a crook. Agnew was a crook. Quayle was a cipher. Cheney doesn't even belong on the list unless disagreeing with his politics entitles you to call him whacko.logical_song said:
Depends on your definition of 'whacko'.tyson said:Hmmmm- I cannot recall one whacko being elected POTUS, or VP for that matter
taffys said:Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.
America is not Britain, not by a long chalk. Politicians lazily dismissed as lunatics here and eminently electable there.
Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney were not great Presidents / Vice Presidents but also not in the same league as Trump for whackiness.0 -
I think it'll be too little to late to stop one of Cruz/Trump, I really do. Admittedly there have been very few polls outside Iowa/NH but nothing there is suggests they are not a good indicator of the overall mood. Therefore the establishment needs to change the mood music and I think that'll be too little too late in March (moreso if Bush stays in).MTimT said:
I do not see us getting down to just one Establishment candidate until delegate allocation switches from proportional to winner takes all, mid-March. After Super Tuesday, we'll definitely have the (almost final) winnowing.TheWhiteRabbit said:
At the moment even with perfect transfer between non-Cruz/Trump candidates it won't happen. Nor, with Trump likely to win in NH and Cruz or Trump in Iowa, do I see that changing much down the line.Richard_Nabavi said:
If we assume that Trump and Cruz do well in Iowa and/or NH and thus remain leading contenders, then at least one of Rubio, Bush, and Christie will also stay in the game and will seek to hoover up establishment support. Eventually that will get winnowed down to just one establishment figure, but maybe not yet unless one of the three clearly takes an early lead over the other two.Pulpstar said:Clinton can come back from a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rubio can't imo. As for Jeb Bush...
That being said it's Bush I've sold most. Equally if he doggedly stays in the race (based on funds) we'll split the establishment vote further - and still won't win.0 -
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
Trump is a more extreme version of Nigel Farage. If Nige were in the US he would be saying the same things as Trump since the centre of politics in the US is shifted to the right compared to here. It's why the Dems and Tories are closer to each other than the Dems are to Labour or the GOP to the Tories. Being centre left or centrist in the US puts a party in the centre or on the centre right here.MTimT said:
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.0 -
I think that's right: shady business practices, sexual deviance...MTimT said:
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.
(JOKE!)0 -
Unexpectedly high votes for the Greens, 'Libertarian' Party, or one of the number of 'others' that get on the Presidential ballot paper and normally get very few votes?MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
I understand that history is against candidates who do not make a showing in either Iowa or NH, but this is the first time under modern primary rules that we've had a field like this, and so I am not at all sure what value history is in predicting this year.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I think it'll be too little to late to stop one of Cruz/Trump, I really do. Admittedly there have been very few polls outside Iowa/NH but nothing there is suggests they are not a good indicator of the overall mood. Therefore the establishment needs to change the mood music and I think that'll be too little too late in March (moreso if Bush stays in).MTimT said:
I do not see us getting down to just one Establishment candidate until delegate allocation switches from proportional to winner takes all, mid-March. After Super Tuesday, we'll definitely have the (almost final) winnowing.TheWhiteRabbit said:
At the moment even with perfect transfer between non-Cruz/Trump candidates it won't happen. Nor, with Trump likely to win in NH and Cruz or Trump in Iowa, do I see that changing much down the line.Richard_Nabavi said:
If we assume that Trump and Cruz do well in Iowa and/or NH and thus remain leading contenders, then at least one of Rubio, Bush, and Christie will also stay in the game and will seek to hoover up establishment support. Eventually that will get winnowed down to just one establishment figure, but maybe not yet unless one of the three clearly takes an early lead over the other two.Pulpstar said:Clinton can come back from a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rubio can't imo. As for Jeb Bush...
That being said it's Bush I've sold most. Equally if he doggedly stays in the race (based on funds) we'll split the establishment vote further - and still won't win.
FWIW, I have no idea what is going to happen or who will win. I still think that strong forces will come in play to thwart both Trump and Cruz.0 -
Perhaps the Conservative Party fields a candidate. But alas, that would probably be Rand Paul.Lennon said:
Unexpectedly high votes for the Greens, 'Libertarian' Party, or one of the number of 'others' that get on the Presidential ballot paper and normally get very few votes?MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
Who would he caucus with in the event that he won? An independent POTUS would not have an automatic power base, and though he is quite right wing on economics, he is very liberal at the same time. Every bill would have to be done on a bipartisan basis to get through the House and the Senate, not exactly an easy proposition.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
I disagree.MaxPB said:
Trump is a more extreme version of Nigel Farage. If Nige were in the US he would be saying the same things as Trump since the centre of politics in the US is shifted to the right compared to here. It's why the Dems and Tories are closer to each other than the Dems are to Labour or the GOP to the Tories. Being centre left or centrist in the US puts a party in the centre or on the centre right here.MTimT said:
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.
Farage doesn't scare me. (Other than the drinking.) But he is an intelligent, thoughtful guy who's changed the agenda. He is not anti-business or, in general, particularly populist. His biggest issue is that he has a tendancy to make off the cuff jokes that are taken all too seriously by the commentariat. (Does anyone really think that he believes that immigrants are to blame for traffic going out to Bristol?)
Trump will say anything to get elected. He doesn't believe half the shit that comes out of his mouth. He doesn't really believe the Mexicans will pay for a wall. He doesn't really believe that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US.0 -
I was thinking of the possibility of John McAfee becoming President... :-) (http://www.wired.com/2015/09/john-mcafee-want-run-president/)MTimT said:
Perhaps the Conservative Party fields a candidate. But alas, that would probably be Rand Paul.Lennon said:
Unexpectedly high votes for the Greens, 'Libertarian' Party, or one of the number of 'others' that get on the Presidential ballot paper and normally get very few votes?MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.
Having said that - Robert is correct - Bloomberg would likely stand as an Indie - my only question is would he be able to / what are the rules on entering the race late. (No idea how the procedural rules work in the US)0 -
''But by what right does an arsehole like Trump call himself a 'Republican'? In what way has he ever stood for election in any capacity as a politician previously? In what way has he ever served the Republican Party in any capacity. How can the Republican Party allow him (and others as well for all I know) to claim to be a serious Republican? ''
THose are good questions, but this is the source of Trump's appeal. He is an outsider. He doesn;t owe his position to a myriad of favours and donors that want settling when he becomes president.
Americans, like many in the West, are tired of voting for a selection of different parties and ending up with a form of social democracy whatever they vote.
THis isn;t right versus left any more because the voters can't tell the difference. It is establishment versus anti-establishment.0 -
Bloomberg has the right mix. Liberal socially, dry economically.MaxPB said:
Who would he caucus with in the event that he won? An independent POTUS would not have an automatic power base, and though he is quite right wing on economics, he is very liberal at the same time. Every bill would have to be done on a bipartisan basis to get through the House and the Senate, not exactly an easy proposition.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
O'Sullivan currently in the decider in what I presume is an opening match in the Masters - Get your terrestrial on!0
-
In Bradford GG had no change of winning by-election...until the day. His ethnic base in Bradford mirrors London. He claims Corbyn wants him to win!gettingbetter said:
I am inclined agree with Dixie unless Galloway does very well in which case the second prefs could favour Khan more than that. But as GG votes will come mainly from Khan getting some of them back again is nothing great.Dixie said:
Interesting.Sean_F said:
IMO second preferences only matter if the margin on first preferences is 2% or less.Dixie said:O/T, bumped into Junior Doctors at Hammersmith Tube giving their sob story, which I didn't accept. Apparently, it is about safety, not money!! Utter b*llocks. Interestingly, a couple of Corbynistas there started to give me a hard time. I just asked how they got a day off from their public school! Didn't like it.
Also, O/T, the only worthwhile betting on Mayoral race will be for 3rd place. Galloway, Libs, UKIP all evenly matched. Is there a market for this?
Also, O/T, 2nd preferences making it very hard to determine winner in main event too.0 -
I think Nige is moderated by being in the UK though, I really believe that in the US he would be a very successful right wing republican with a massive powerbase who "tells it as he sees it" very much like Trump.rcs1000 said:I disagree.
Farage doesn't scare me. (Other than the drinking.) But he is an intelligent, thoughtful guy who's changed the agenda. He is not anti-business or, in general, particularly populist. His biggest issue is that he has a tendancy to make off the cuff jokes that are taken all too seriously by the commentariat. (Does anyone really think that he believes that immigrants are to blame for traffic going out to Bristol?)
Trump will say anything to get elected. He doesn't believe half the shit that comes out of his mouth. He doesn't really believe the Mexicans will pay for a wall. He doesn't really believe that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US.
I agree that he has changed the agenda, but then so has Trump in the US. As much as I hate to admit it, some of what he says has forced the others to address concerns over immigration in the US and given what is happening in Europe at the moment wrt to sexual molestation of women by Muslim immigrants/refugees he is right about halting the US refugee resettlement programme until more background checks can be carried out about the people they are letting in. Part of the reason Bush has been doing so badly is because immigration has been pushed up so high on the agenda by Trump and his family's legacy on immigration is toxic with the GOP base.0 -
A good point. Trump is standing out from the crowd in the same way that Corbyn stood out from the other three contenders in the Labour contest. His actual views on things are unimportant *at this stage*, what matters is that he is speaking his mind and saying things that no-one else is saying, to those with previously little interest in politics.taffys said:''But by what right does an arsehole like Trump call himself a 'Republican'? In what way has he ever stood for election in any capacity as a politician previously? In what way has he ever served the Republican Party in any capacity. How can the Republican Party allow him (and others as well for all I know) to claim to be a serious Republican? ''
THose are good questions, but this is the source of Trump's appeal. He is an outsider. He doesn;t owe his position to a myriad of favours and donors that want settling when he becomes president.
Americans, like many in the West, are tired of voting for a selection of different parties and ending up with a form of social democracy whatever they vote.
THis isn;t right versus left any more because the voters can't tell the difference. It is establishment versus anti-establishment.
If he gets the nomination then he will also be in Corbyn's position of being unelectable - but the other side have the choice of the equally unelectable Sanders, or the ultimate Establishment Machine politician Clinton.
I'm putting a fiver on Bloomberg.0 -
Not the right mix to win, IMHO. It's basically the agenda of the Republican Establishment.Dixie said:
Bloomberg has the right mix. Liberal socially, dry economically.MaxPB said:
Who would he caucus with in the event that he won? An independent POTUS would not have an automatic power base, and though he is quite right wing on economics, he is very liberal at the same time. Every bill would have to be done on a bipartisan basis to get through the House and the Senate, not exactly an easy proposition.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
Given that the government are scrapping fines for trusts who break the working time directive this seems like empty promises.JonathanD said:
The new NHS contract does seem to be about making the workload more manageable and reducing the amount of overwork.tyson said:The lack of understanding for junior doctors by Tories is really quite phenomenal. Hunt just doesn't get it.
Sarah Wollaston talks about back in the day- 90 hour shifts, sleepless weekends etc...
It's not the long shifts, or the pay- it is the stress that we put these poor bastards under. Junior Doctors are left with out of hours clinical responsibility for 3 or 4 wards for hours at a time. And the clinical needs of patients are just so complex, and the range of treatments equally so. The amount of decisions, many critical, they have to make is staggering- something Wollaston would never have faced because medicine has incomprehensibly. And if their colleagues don't turn in- they have to double their workloads.
One hour of this kind of pressure is too much for a young doctor, never mind shift after shift after shift of full on stress.
For any of the cynics here- have you ever been responsible for critical care? Have you ever worn an emergency bleeper and faced life and death decisions in the middle off the night? We should lionise these young, intelligent, caring doctors for being willing to put themselves into the line of fire in this way, listen to them and make their workload manageable so they carry out their responsibilities safely.
"On safety, the existing contract provides inadequate safeguards for doctors, too many of whom still work unsafe hours. It allows work of up to 91 hours in any one week and to exceed other working time limits. There are insufficient safeguards against consecutive long shifts...
The new contract proposals will improve patient safety - with safeguards introduced in relation to hours worked, breaks between shifts, and accountability and oversight. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-information-from-letter-to-all-junior-doctors/summary-detail-on-safety-training-and-pay0 -
Political Betting the home of sages who tipped Scott Walker and Rand Paul.
Cruz would get crushed in the general election.0 -
Not true....R5 has just done a report in person with those on the picket line and they said no they have not and would not return to work for a "Level 4", and that BMA advice was it had to be a "Level 5" before they would go back in.watford30 said:
According to news reports, doctors defied the BMA and returned to work.TheScreamingEagles said:Off topic, this surely can't help the Junior Doctors?
BMA tells striking junior doctors to defy Sandwell hospital orders to return
Midlands hospital declares level four incident but union tells members not to return to work until situation is clarified
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/junior-doctors-strike-begins0 -
http://order-order.com/2016/01/12/vaizey-minister-of-fun-from-day-one/
The longest serving and least effective minister...0 -
That and the fact that libertarianism has failed time and again in the US. It's not like here where there are enough people who want economic security coupled be social liberty to vote in a Tory government which broadly represents that view. In the US people who value economic security are also those who are against abortion and gay marriage while liberals tend to be in favour of more welfare and more spending. The left right split in the US is much more defined than it is here. Bloomberg could win if the main race is Trump vs Sanders, there would be enough people alienated by the social and economic views of both to drive Bloomberg to victory on the coasts and in a few GOP states. I think he would mostly win in blue states though reflecting the fact that socially conservative types really loathe liberals.Sean_F said:
Not the right mix to win, IMHO. It's basically the agenda of the Republican Establishment.Dixie said:
Bloomberg has the right mix. Liberal socially, dry economically.MaxPB said:
Who would he caucus with in the event that he won? An independent POTUS would not have an automatic power base, and though he is quite right wing on economics, he is very liberal at the same time. Every bill would have to be done on a bipartisan basis to get through the House and the Senate, not exactly an easy proposition.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
Yes - that's been their line all day, also -FrancisUrquhart said:
Not true....R5 has just done a report in person with those on the picket line and they said no they have not and would not return to work for a "Level 4", and that BMA advice was it had to be a "Level 5" before they would go back in.watford30 said:
According to news reports, doctors defied the BMA and returned to work.TheScreamingEagles said:Off topic, this surely can't help the Junior Doctors?
BMA tells striking junior doctors to defy Sandwell hospital orders to return
Midlands hospital declares level four incident but union tells members not to return to work until situation is clarified
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/junior-doctors-strike-begins
https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/6869286416290242570 -
O'Sullivan Thru0
-
New German poll:
CDU/CSU 35.0%
SPD 21.5%
AfD 11.5%
Linke 10.0%
Green 10.0%
FDP 6.0%
Others 6.0%
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/0 -
The point about the joke is that it shows Farage is thick because he does not realise that there is more traffic because of a) prosperity and b) more women drivers.rcs1000 said:
I disagree.MaxPB said:
Trump is a more extreme version of Nigel Farage. If Nige were in the US he would be saying the same things as Trump since the centre of politics in the US is shifted to the right compared to here. It's why the Dems and Tories are closer to each other than the Dems are to Labour or the GOP to the Tories. Being centre left or centrist in the US puts a party in the centre or on the centre right here.MTimT said:
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.
Farage doesn't scare me. (Other than the drinking.) But he is an intelligent, thoughtful guy who's changed the agenda. He is not anti-business or, in general, particularly populist. His biggest issue is that he has a tendancy to make off the cuff jokes that are taken all too seriously by the commentariat. (Does anyone really think that he believes that immigrants are to blame for traffic going out to Bristol?)
Trump will say anything to get elected. He doesn't believe half the shit that comes out of his mouth. He doesn't really believe the Mexicans will pay for a wall. He doesn't really believe that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US.
But Farage is a misogynistic oaf anyway so he would not see why women should be blocking his way either.0 -
Off Topic (with apols)
There's an interesting Premier League game at st. James' Park this evening between Newcastle Utd. and Manchester Utd. - not least because their respective managers are among the favourites to be the next to lose their post (aka "the sack race").
Louis van Gaal is offered at disconcertingly short odds of 0.53/1 with Paddy Power, whilst Newcastle's Steve McClaren is the third favourite also with PP and others, at a somewhat more comfortable price of 11/1.
Inevitably this is a volatile market, with the odds often changing significantly after each series of games.
Man Utd. are clear favourites to win this evening, but it would seem that the manager of whichever side loses will be that much closer to the trapdoor as a result.
FWIW, McClaren looks the value bet here, but DYOR.0 -
Link? He sounds fairly median socialist to me - likes single-payer health services etc. To misquote whoever it was about Reagan - I've known communists, and he ain't no communist. And he's a bit soft on guns, being a hunter himself.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
On the question of how 3rd parties run - way back in the day I was the European organiser for Eugene McCarthy's 3rd party effort, which flopped miserably (I think he got 1%). The challenge is getting on the ballot in all 50 states - some of them are very easy, but for some you need masses of registered signatures, as I recall, with an earlyish deadline (unless it's changed a lot). I'd guess Bloomberg could get on 40 or so states' ballots without trouble.
The same applies to Trump, if he decides he was robbed of victory by an Establishment conspiracy (which could well be sort of true, if they can manage it) and goes back on his promise not to run. At least a 50% shot, I'd think - he's having fun, why would he stop?
0 -
Christ I've heard it all now - Farage in Anti Woman Driver Slur Shocker!0
-
I was told he voted Democrat historically. Don't know how true it is. Republicans are in toruble because if Trunp doesn't win, he might stand. he's loving this fame stuffSean_F said:
Not the right mix to win, IMHO. It's basically the agenda of the Republican Establishment.Dixie said:
Bloomberg has the right mix. Liberal socially, dry economically.MaxPB said:
Who would he caucus with in the event that he won? An independent POTUS would not have an automatic power base, and though he is quite right wing on economics, he is very liberal at the same time. Every bill would have to be done on a bipartisan basis to get through the House and the Senate, not exactly an easy proposition.rcs1000 said:
Don't worry, Mr Bloomberg would be on the ballot in those circumstances.MaxPB said:Honestly if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Sanders then they deserve everything that comes their way. Trump would walk an election against Sanders, the guy is a commie, not even a closet one, he is an actual communist.
It's a lamentable situation when the "talent" in the US boils down to the wife of an ex-POTUS and a crazy billionaire. It's not a choice I would want to make. If it was Trump vs Sanders I just wouldn't know what to do, there is no way I would vote for Trump, but there is also no way I would vote for Sanders. I think wiping my arse with the ballot paper would surely be the order of the day.0 -
Tell that to George Osborne. It's exactly where his leadership would take the Conservative Party.Sean_F said:
I think that Trump might indeed fail to win key swing States like Florida and Virginia, yet perform very well indeed in the Rustbelt.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, I think there are a few key swing states Trump would fail to win if against Hillary because of basic demographics (why would Trump collect them where Romney and McCain failed?) but I certainly wouldn't rule him out.rcs1000 said:
Trump would hammer Sanders, and would be 50/50 against Hillary.taffys said:''Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist. ''
If I had a quid for every time I've read this. It really is starting to look like conventional wisdom.
We assume that because we think he's unpalatable that Americans will think the same, whereas the evidence shows he is tapping into something quite visceral.
There's an assumption that the platform favoured by the Republican establishment (liberal on immigration, give big business whatever it wants) is popular. It isn't. And, it wouldn't be popular over here, either.0 -
The point about the joke is that he made a joke,flightpath01 said:
The point about the joke is that it shows Farage is thick because he does not realise that there is more traffic because of a) prosperity and b) more women drivers.rcs1000 said:
I disagree.MaxPB said:
Trump is a more extreme version of Nigel Farage. If Nige were in the US he would be saying the same things as Trump since the centre of politics in the US is shifted to the right compared to here. It's why the Dems and Tories are closer to each other than the Dems are to Labour or the GOP to the Tories. Being centre left or centrist in the US puts a party in the centre or on the centre right here.MTimT said:
Surely Trump is more Berlusconi? Don't see him as either Corbyn or Galloway, even allowing for the Left/Right mirroring.DecrepitJohnL said:
Cruz might be Corbyn. He is not Establishment. Trump is more Galloway.TGOHF said:
Trump = the Corbyn outcome.JohnLoony said:It all depends on whether the GOP wants to win the presidential election. If it does, it will select Rubio or Cruz (or possibly Bush, or Christie, or Whoever). If it doesn't, it will select Trump. Or, to put it the other way round, if it selects Trump, it will lose. If it does not select Trump, it may have a chance of winning.
Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist.
Farage doesn't scare me. (Other than the drinking.) But he is an intelligent, thoughtful guy who's changed the agenda. He is not anti-business or, in general, particularly populist. His biggest issue is that he has a tendancy to make off the cuff jokes that are taken all too seriously by the commentariat. (Does anyone really think that he believes that immigrants are to blame for traffic going out to Bristol?)
Trump will say anything to get elected. He doesn't believe half the shit that comes out of his mouth. He doesn't really believe the Mexicans will pay for a wall. He doesn't really believe that all Muslims should be banned from entering the US.
But Farage is a misogynistic oaf anyway so he would not see why women should be blocking his way either.0 -
What's a St Jame's Park?0
-
Radio 4 said otherwise on The World at One. More joined up reporting from BBC News. Take it up with them!FrancisUrquhart said:
Not true....R5 has just done a report in person with those on the picket line and they said no they have not and would not return to work for a "Level 4", and that BMA advice was it had to be a "Level 5" before they would go back in.watford30 said:
According to news reports, doctors defied the BMA and returned to work.TheScreamingEagles said:Off topic, this surely can't help the Junior Doctors?
BMA tells striking junior doctors to defy Sandwell hospital orders to return
Midlands hospital declares level four incident but union tells members not to return to work until situation is clarified
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/12/junior-doctors-strike-begins0 -
I don't like these yank thread's anyway - C'mon nice black doctor man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111110
-
Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.0 -
Dave has managed it with a decent level of success, Osborne's problem is not the platform which he would stand on, but him. He is incredibly unpopular with normal voters. Grudging respect will only take him so far if Labour get their act together and dump Corbyn. People really, really don't like him. I think it is the smirks that he had in 2012 when he cut spending that really did him in. If he had been more grave about it all and treated the job with more respect rather than his personal plaything to hurt his opponents or the opposition then he wouldn't be so loathed.Casino_Royale said:
Tell that to George Osborne. It's exactly where his leadership would take the Conservative Party.Sean_F said:
I think that Trump might indeed fail to win key swing States like Florida and Virginia, yet perform very well indeed in the Rustbelt.Casino_Royale said:
Yes, I think there are a few key swing states Trump would fail to win if against Hillary because of basic demographics (why would Trump collect them where Romney and McCain failed?) but I certainly wouldn't rule him out.rcs1000 said:
Trump would hammer Sanders, and would be 50/50 against Hillary.taffys said:''Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist. ''
If I had a quid for every time I've read this. It really is starting to look like conventional wisdom.
We assume that because we think he's unpalatable that Americans will think the same, whereas the evidence shows he is tapping into something quite visceral.
There's an assumption that the platform favoured by the Republican establishment (liberal on immigration, give big business whatever it wants) is popular. It isn't. And, it wouldn't be popular over here, either.0 -
0
-
9 or 10 out of 10 victims were German apparentlyCyclefree said:Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.0 -
It's Newcastle United's home ground of course!!!Sunil_Prasannan said:0 -
Is that just a coincidence I wonder?JBriskin said:
9 or 10 out of 10 victims were German apparentlyCyclefree said:Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.0 -
Isn't it also Exeter's ground?Sunil_Prasannan said:0 -
Is this going to the pattern of the future? Random suicide bombers in various cities - hitting tourist centres and vulnerable targets? Hard to catch; hard to stop; and effective at spreading terror. The latest story is that the bomber was a female Saudi national. What might the implications be?JBriskin said:
9 or 10 out of 10 victims were German apparentlyCyclefree said:Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.
0 -
Not from the analysis I read - but it was just a tweet...AndyJS said:
Is that just a coincidence I wonder?JBriskin said:
9 or 10 out of 10 victims were German apparentlyCyclefree said:Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.0 -
It's a crime against apostrophes, that's what a "St Jame's Park" is.JBriskin said:What's a St Jame's Park?
0 -
Aforementioned match kicks off live on BT sport at 19450
-
Sanders has 14% lead over Clinton in new New Hampshire poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-poll-bernie-sanders-leads-every-major-voting-bloc/0 -
BBC said Syrian. Was there not a second bomber they caught before they detonated?Cyclefree said:
Is this going to the pattern of the future? Random suicide bombers in various cities - hitting tourist centres and vulnerable targets? Hard to catch; hard to stop; and effective at spreading terror. The latest story is that the bomber was a female Saudi national. What might the implications be?JBriskin said:
9 or 10 out of 10 victims were German apparentlyCyclefree said:Never mind about the doctors' strike. What the hell is going in Istanbul? Ten dead, others injured. The beautiful old centre of Istanbul attacked. And follows on from the attacks on Egypt in the last few days.
Istanbul is one of my favourite cities in the world. A bad day for it and the Turks and all of us.0 -
Just a typo - nothing to see here - move along...AlastairMeeks said:
It's a crime against apostrophes, that's what a "St Jame's Park" is.JBriskin said:What's a St Jame's Park?
0 -
I've bought my Bloomberg cover (I have a long term Dem/Rep) position for POTUS whilst it's cheap (210.0 on Betfair)Danny565 said:Sanders has 14% lead over Clinton in new New Hampshire poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-poll-bernie-sanders-leads-every-major-voting-bloc/0 -
Last survivor of the great San Francisco earthquake dies aged almost 110...
http://www.wral.com/last-survivor-of-1906-san-francisco-earthquake-dead-at-109/15227244/0 -
With the mega mouth Trump and the media going to town on everything he does or says, it is easy to forgot Clinton campaign isn't going as smoothly as it should.Danny565 said:Sanders has 14% lead over Clinton in new New Hampshire poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-poll-bernie-sanders-leads-every-major-voting-bloc/0 -
Anthony Seldon's book is pretty clear on the differences between Cameron and Osborne, which chime with the evidence IMHO.MaxPB said:
Dave has managed it with a decent level of success, Osborne's problem is not the platform which he would stand on, but him. He is incredibly unpopular with normal voters. Grudging respect will only take him so far if Labour get their act together and dump Corbyn. People really, really don't like him. I think it is the smirks that he had in 2012 when he cut spending that really did him in. If he had been more grave about it all and treated the job with more respect rather than his personal plaything to hurt his opponents or the opposition then he wouldn't be so loathed.Casino_Royale said:
Tell that to George Osborne. It's exactly where his leadership would take the Conservative Party.Sean_F said:
I think that TrumpCasino_Royale said:
Yes, I think there are a few key swing states Trump would fail to win if against Hillary because of basic demographics (why would Trump collect them where Romney and McCain failed?) but I certainly wouldn't rule him out.rcs1000 said:
Trump would hammer Sanders, and would be 50/50 against Hillary.taffys said:''Trump, if nominated, would be heavily defeated by either Hillary Clinton or Sanders or Whoever else, even if Hillary is bogged down in further revelations of the email or sex scandals. It would be a bit like the French people voting for a crook in order to stop a fascist. ''
If I had a quid for every time I've read this. It really is starting to look like conventional wisdom.
We assume that because we think he's unpalatable that Americans will think the same, whereas the evidence shows he is tapping into something quite visceral.
There's an assumption that the platform favoured by the Republican establishment (liberal on immigration, give big business whatever it wants) is popular. It isn't. And, it wouldn't be popular over here, either.
Cameron is a Shire Tory by background who values family, monarchy and has some sympathy with preserving traditional British way of life, and supports Theresa May on the migration cap.
Osborne is a metropolitan, socially liberal, economic liberal (except where it threatens his career agenda), liberal on immigration, and more of a neocon with foreign policy, although very sceptical of the defence establishment.
Key differences: Osborne would scrap Sunday trading restrictions, the immigration cap, marriage tax allowances and would be more sympathetic to the CBI and IoD.
Cameron also vetoed Osborne's moves on a wealth/property tax in the last parliament, which is why we now have a 45p top rate rather than 40p.0 -
What's this about?
“unless she is flagged up as a national security risk” by the immigration authorities.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/12/wonk-watch-kate-andrews-from-asi-to-iea/0 -
Lords debating Commons overturn of Lords amendment re votes at 16 for local elections.
Lab announces it will abstain.
So Govt surely about to win.0 -
Common sense prevails at last. (When I was 16 I thought 16 year olds should be able to vote, but I've changed my mind since then).MikeL said:Lords debating Commons overturn of Lords amendment re votes at 16 for local elections.
Lab announces it will abstain.
So Govt surely about to win.0 -
I'm beginning to wonder if the Donald might go all the way:
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon0 -
Cheeky monkey ASI girl on a transfer apparently NewsSense fans0
-
She's a yankFrancisUrquhart said:What's this about?
“unless she is flagged up as a national security risk” by the immigration authorities.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/12/wonk-watch-kate-andrews-from-asi-to-iea/0 -
''With the mega mouth Trump and the media going to town on everything he does or says, it is easy to forgot Clinton campaign isn't going as smoothly as it should.''
Fox is running a story that FBI investigations into Clinton conduct when secretary of state are intensifying.
0 -
No - Lib Dem peers are taking it to a vote!
Division now.
LD amendment to reject Commons overturn and reinstate votes at 16 in Local elections.
Result in 15 mins.
NB. Lab front bench said Lab will abstain so looks good for Govt.
0 -
Lords looking very empty!
Anything could happen but surely Con have enough Peers on site if all Lab Peers abstain - even with a big LD turnout.0 -
Clever move by Trump to hold a rally in the city where he's probably least popular — Burlington, Vermont.Patrick said:I'm beginning to wonder if the Donald might go all the way:
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon0 -
-
0
-
Easy to say but it opens a bigger, darker question. On the London underground we have St. James's Park and Earl's Court stations but we also have Barons Court! Why are the first two written in good English but not the last? Why has no Mayor of London corrected this. Deep waters methinks, probably involving Freemasonry, if not some hidden secret about the Templars.JBriskin said:
Just a typo - nothing to see here - move along...AlastairMeeks said:
It's a crime against apostrophes, that's what a "St Jame's Park" is.JBriskin said:What's a St Jame's Park?
0 -
Could we really get nutjob vs nutjob for the POTUS....JBriskin said:#WhiteHouseRace
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/6869569570397388800 -
*MARTIN O'MALLEY SURGE KLAXON*
New Hampshire: Monmouth University
Sanders: 53% (+8)
Clinton: 39% (-9)
O'Malley: 5% (+2)
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/9f985b33-23bc-4c9f-961b-7edf1ab902d8.pdf0 -
Yes yes - well the original post was a parody of something - so it only seems fitting that I would accidentally typo something in response *secret freemasonary wink*HurstLlama said:
Easy to say but it opens a bigger, darker question. On the London underground we have St. James's Park and Earl's Court stations but we also have Barons Court! Why are the first two written in good English but not the last? Why has no Mayor of London corrected this. Deep waters methinks, probably involving Freemasonry, if not some hidden secret about the Templars.JBriskin said:
Just a typo - nothing to see here - move along...AlastairMeeks said:
It's a crime against apostrophes, that's what a "St Jame's Park" is.JBriskin said:What's a St Jame's Park?
0 -
FU..You betcha babe...wannanotherbeer0
-
Is Andrew Griffiths your MP too?JBriskin said:0 -
O/T:
Derren Brown's latest show is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-pushed-to-the-edge0 -
LD Motion:
For: 99
Against: 250
Govt wins!
Votes at 16 now dead for this Parliament.0 -
Hmmm...another one that is "I am going to convince people to do stuff that is bad". I have to say I am a little bored with these and I like Derren Brown a lot.AndyJS said:O/T:
Derren Brown's latest show is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-pushed-to-the-edge0 -
One gets the feeling that someone in the Republicans or Fox has something big on Hilary, and they're hoping she'll be nominated and the campaign well under way before it's revealed.taffys said:''With the mega mouth Trump and the media going to town on everything he does or says, it is easy to forgot Clinton campaign isn't going as smoothly as it should.''
Fox is running a story that FBI investigations into Clinton conduct when secretary of state are intensifying.
Could be complete bollox, but just a hunch.0 -
3....2....1....Tw@tterati OUTTTTRAGEEEEEE...MikeL said:LD Motion:
For: 99
Against: 250
Govt wins!
Votes at 16 now dead for this Parliament.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
