Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democratic voters are more fired up about WH2020 than Republic

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 8 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democratic voters are more fired up about WH2020 than Republicans ones which could be bad news for Trump

By far the biggest global political betting event next year will be the White House Race and all the series of state primaries leading up to it. We have, of course, already started the TV debates for the Democratic nomination and a further round is scheduled for the end of the month.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    A snippet from RCS on the previous thread suggesting cooling relations between Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump might prove significant later on.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    It’s hard to imagine US sports fans overseas doing this for any other president...
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/451901-crowd-chants-f-trump-during-fox-news-broadcast-at-french-sports-bar
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453
    These odds feel like they've overshot.

    Biden gaffes a lot but the voters don't seem to mind that much, and he was sucky in the debate but that's pretty common with big-shots who haven't debated for a while. Obama and (IIRC) Bush W both kind-of bombed in their first debates as president; I guess they fail to take it seriously and don't prepare and practice as much as they should.

    Kamala seems to have a habit of making a big of a splash then not having anything to follow it up with; She did this big thing with Barr that got shared everywhere where she looked like she was getting him to admit to something ready for the big reveal, then the big reveal never came. Then she went after Biden for not supporting a policy that she apparently doesn't actually support herself. And she appeared to commit to taking away everybody's health insurance, which she's probably since walked back sufficiently since, but claiming she misunderstood the question sounds lame. Her wins showed she can be effective but they've been carefully prepared attacks where she gets to choose the terrain, and we haven't really seen what she's like at defence.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    An obvious side effect of Trump’s deep unpopularity with a large slice of the electorate is that it gives any eventual Democratic nominee a very good shot at winning; this is not your usual contest for the right to challenge an incumbent president.

    Candidates are going to be very reluctant indeed to drop out of the race, until all hope is extinguished - and others are still thinking about throwing their hat into the crowded ring:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/07/tom-steyer-running-2020-democrats-1399507

    The next set of two debates at the end of this month will be very interesting indeed, as they have almost as much chance of overturning the impressions of the first set, as they do for confirming them. And the debates themselves seem to be taking on an outsize importance similar to the Republican ones which resulted in the seemingly improbable nomination of Donald Trump.

    Add in the bar being raised (position in the polls and donations received) for qualifying to take part in subsequent debates, and you will have candidates desperate to grab their last chance for the spotlight.
    Everyone has seen the dramatic bump in Harris’s fortunes thanks to her ambush on Biden and will be considering how they might do the same. Of course it’s not an easy trick to pull off, and the debates might just descend into an ill tempered brawl, but they are in any event likely to be pretty feisty affairs.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,418
    Above all gentlemen, not too much zeal.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Talking of big reveals, the forthcoming biography of Michael Gove that killed off his leadership chances is due out in the middle of this month but there have been no new revelations from review copies that must by now have been sent out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371

    These odds feel like they've overshot.

    Biden gaffes a lot but the voters don't seem to mind that much, and he was sucky in the debate but that's pretty common with big-shots who haven't debated for a while. Obama and (IIRC) Bush W both kind-of bombed in their first debates as president; I guess they fail to take it seriously and don't prepare and practice as much as they should.

    Kamala seems to have a habit of making a big of a splash then not having anything to follow it up with; She did this big thing with Barr that got shared everywhere where she looked like she was getting him to admit to something ready for the big reveal, then the big reveal never came. Then she went after Biden for not supporting a policy that she apparently doesn't actually support herself. And she appeared to commit to taking away everybody's health insurance, which she's probably since walked back sufficiently since, but claiming she misunderstood the question sounds lame. Her wins showed she can be effective but they've been carefully prepared attacks where she gets to choose the terrain, and we haven't really seen what she's like at defence.

    A not unreasonable impression; she could easily have an off night at the next debate. I do think she has established herself as a contender who is in for the long haul, though.

    Your comments on Harris’s policy positions are quite right - I get the impression she’s trying to establish ground somewhere between the conservatism of Biden and the radicalism of Sanders and Warren, but it’s a steep learning curve at this level.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    These odds feel like they've overshot.

    Biden gaffes a lot but the voters don't seem to mind that much, and he was sucky in the debate but that's pretty common with big-shots who haven't debated for a while. Obama and (IIRC) Bush W both kind-of bombed in their first debates as president; I guess they fail to take it seriously and don't prepare and practice as much as they should.

    Kamala seems to have a habit of making a big of a splash then not having anything to follow it up with; She did this big thing with Barr that got shared everywhere where she looked like she was getting him to admit to something ready for the big reveal, then the big reveal never came. Then she went after Biden for not supporting a policy that she apparently doesn't actually support herself. And she appeared to commit to taking away everybody's health insurance, which she's probably since walked back sufficiently since, but claiming she misunderstood the question sounds lame. Her wins showed she can be effective but they've been carefully prepared attacks where she gets to choose the terrain, and we haven't really seen what she's like at defence.

    Kamala, yes. With Biden, though, it was not so much that he gaffed as that he seemed tired which played into concerns about his age.

    The Democrat field is very crowded which means so are the debates. I cannot decide if this means there is value at the front of the market or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371

    Above all gentlemen, not too much zeal.

    Advice for a diplomat; for a candidate, nothing succeeds so well as success...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453

    or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.

    KLOBUCHAR!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Meaningless coincidence of the day: Republican pollster Frank Luntz of focus group and political language fame, coiner of death tax and climate change, who is mentioned in the header, was at Oxford at the same time as Boris.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.

    KLOBUCHAR!
    The layers at 10 to 20/1 will be delighted at her current price of 200+. In horseracing parlance, has a leg fallen off?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,052
    Biden has always been a charisma free zone. Now, he's just a tired, old, gaffe prone, charisma free zone.

    His redeeming feature is that he was Obama's VP. And therefore Trump hates him. Because Trump hates anything associated with the Obama era.

    Biden also looks like he's hating the campaign.

    And remember, this is a guy who didn't want to stand against Hillary, as he thought it might be too hard.

    Oh yeah, because he announced so late, he's got a fairly rubbish organisation.

    Who wants to give me odds on him dropping out before the Iowa caucuses?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,623
    Nigelb said:

    Above all gentlemen, not too much zeal.

    Advice for a diplomat; for a candidate, nothing succeeds so well as success...
    Or in the days of Trump & Johnson "nothing succeeds like excess"......

    FPT, Lord Ashcroft polls:

    Which of these characters, then, would people rather have as Prime Minister – competent but conventional and a bit smug, or strong and amusing but unreliable and potentially dangerous? For 2017 Conservatives and those who voted Leave in the referendum, it’s Boris at a canter. But for voters as a whole, Jeremy Hunt comes out on top. Head to head against Jeremy Corbyn, Boris wins by 18 points – but Jeremy Hunt beats his Labour namesake by a 28-point margin. Forced to choose, Britain would prefer a Hunt-led Tory government to a Corbyn-led Labour one by 60 per cent to 40 per cent, but a Boris-led administration to its Corbynite alternative by just 8 points.

    Remain voters account for the difference. Seeing Boris as not just willing but eager to leave the EU without a deal, they would rather have the safer-seeming Hunt than Corbyn in Downing Street, but prefer Corbyn to Johnson by a wide margin.>/i>

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,052

    or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.

    KLOBUCHAR!
    Klobuchar's sole distinguishing feature is that she eats salad with a comb.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,453
    edited July 8
    rcs1000 said:

    Klobuchar's sole distinguishing feature is that she eats salad with a comb.

    Whatever it takes
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,408
    Good morning, everyone.

    Not too surprising, as findings go, but should make things easier for Trump's eventual opponent.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    edited July 8

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC

    Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
    You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
    How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
    Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
    Peter Jay was Ambassador in late 1970s despite being Callaghan's son - in - law!
    Mrs Thatcher also wanted to appoint a non-diplomat as Ambassador to the United States but Edward Heath declined the offer.
    I remember this. As my dad heard the news he said, "She just wants him out of the way".
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 35,623
    Which "senior politician" fancies himself as ambassador to the US?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    It needs to be the Treasury though, not the DOH. I cannot see anything being done this side of April, so another round of big tax bills. The problem is the pension relief taper rather than the contributions rate. Lots of rota gaps over the summer, and no one can afford to do extra sessions when the marginal tax rate can exceed 100%.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,371
    edited July 8
    EPG said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    I think that the most recent appointment of ambassador to the US to someone who was not a diplomat was the journalist Peter Jay in 1977.

    Ah yes. Not entirely unrelated to the fact that his father-in-law was James Callaghan.

    Coughcoughcorruptioncoughcough... :)
    Nepotism certainly but not obviously corruption?
    Hmm
    Thinks.
    I think it could be both.

    These days, Civil Service interviews and appointments are very formal and done by rote: the interview questions cover known subjects and skillsets, the interviewers independently mark them according to preset criteria. There is an online exam prior to the interview, although there is often another technical test in the interview as well. It's quite difficult to get a Service post thru friend-of-a-friend these days. This is why I was so miffed when Toby Young got that job. And if, say Tony Blair Jr got a job on the same basis that would be equally wrong (come to think of it, Will Straw and BSIE fits too) and would also meet the meaning of "corruption" as well as "nepotism"

    However I don't know if Service jobs were so formally appointed in the 70's, so might not have been "corruption" per se. So you might be right.
    But the subjects and skillsets are chosen to suit the person who will get the job.
    I went through a Civil Service graduate interview in 1989. It was the hardest interview process I have been through. It lasted two days. There were written tests, several standard interviews and a group discussion. The test covered my specialisation, the subject of government, logic and psychological questions.

    For the standard interviews I had to supply in advance some political discussion points relevant to that civil service department which were my opionions. In the interview they ripped into my opinions and I had to defend and argue my side. The group discussion was even harder. There were four candidates around a coffee table and the three interviewers observed sitting behind a desk. The panel gave us subjects to discuss, but did not take part in the discussions. I remember that after the first question there was a silence as the four strangers sat wondering what to say. After what seemed like 2 minutes (but was probably only 15 seconds) I decided "if no-one says anything then we all fail" so started with a fairly noncommitial statement aimed at getting the others to talk. As soon as I started talking the pens of the interview panel started scratching away, it was clear to me that they were timing how long the initial pause was and who broke the silence!

    I passed, but in the end I decided the Civil Service was not for me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    I still think the more likely result is Trump being re-elected. The US economy has done pretty well under his charge with strong growth, higher employment and better wages. You can quibble about how sustainable that growth is given the deficit and you might worry about the amount of pressure he has put on the Fed to keep interest rates low but the consequences of these short term fixes seem unlikely to manifest themselves until his second term.

    Trump loves to be a bull in a China shop but the reality, despite the undiplomatic behaviour, is somewhat different. Would Obama have backed off from the strikes on Iran? I think he would have been too concerned about looking weak. The China trade war has been a lot of noise which in itself has brought about some onshoring but now looks to be "back on track". He is not a reliable or consistent friend but his foreign policy is in practice more measured and cautious than the rhetoric.

    It's hard to see the wheat from the chaff in a crowded field but I am not yet seeing anyone in the Democratic race that can change the narrative away from Trump. Edmund's comments downthread about Harris are spot on in my opinion.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 13,144

    These odds feel like they've overshot.

    Biden gaffes a lot but the voters don't seem to mind that much, and he was sucky in the debate but that's pretty common with big-shots who haven't debated for a while. Obama and (IIRC) Bush W both kind-of bombed in their first debates as president; I guess they fail to take it seriously and don't prepare and practice as much as they should.

    Kamala seems to have a habit of making a big of a splash then not having anything to follow it up with; She did this big thing with Barr that got shared everywhere where she looked like she was getting him to admit to something ready for the big reveal, then the big reveal never came. Then she went after Biden for not supporting a policy that she apparently doesn't actually support herself. And she appeared to commit to taking away everybody's health insurance, which she's probably since walked back sufficiently since, but claiming she misunderstood the question sounds lame. Her wins showed she can be effective but they've been carefully prepared attacks where she gets to choose the terrain, and we haven't really seen what she's like at defence.

    Yes - and a general rule at this stage of a multi-candidate race is that it's usually good to lay the favourite.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 2,110

    Which "senior politician" fancies himself as ambassador to the US?

    Possible, though Isabel Oakeshott’s alignment is with the Banks/Wigmore/Farage mob, so I’d look for connections there.

    (I can almost see her house from here... maybe I should lean out the window and yell the question.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    edited July 8
    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    It shows how supine Brexit has made us, that Trump is going to be choosing the next UK ambassador. Take back control, my arse!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 24,525
    eristdoof said:

    EPG said:

    viewcode said:

    Charles said:

    viewcode said:

    I think that the most recent appointment of ambassador to the US to someone who was not a diplomat was the journalist Peter Jay in 1977.

    Ah yes. Not entirely unrelated to the fact that his father-in-law was James Callaghan.

    Coughcoughcorruptioncoughcough... :)
    Nepotism certainly but not obviously corruption?
    Hmm
    Thinks.
    I think it could be both.

    SNIP
    But the subjects and skillsets are chosen to suit the person who will get the job.
    I went through a Civil Service graduate interview in 1989. It was the hardest interview process I have been through. It lasted two days. There were written tests, several standard interviews and a group discussion. The test covered my specialisation, the subject of government, logic and psychological questions.

    For the standard interviews I had to supply in advance some political discussion points relevant to that civil service department which were my opionions. In the interview they ripped into my opinions and I had to defend and argue my side. The group discussion was even harder. There were four candidates around a coffee table and the three interviewers observed sitting behind a desk. The panel gave us subjects to discuss, but did not take part in the discussions. I remember that after the first question there was a silence as the four strangers sat wondering what to say. After what seemed like 2 minutes (but was probably only 15 seconds) I decided "if no-one says anything then we all fail" so started with a fairly noncommitial statement aimed at getting the others to talk. As soon as I started talking the pens of the interview panel started scratching away, it was clear to me that they were timing how long the initial pause was and who broke the silence!

    I passed, but in the end I decided the Civil Service was not for me.
    Yet it is full of duffers, so something far wrong with either interview process or the pathetic ancient system
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,596
    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    He's only in post for another six months anyway. The damage removing him for doing his job to the wider foreign office would surely be far greater.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    It shows how supine Brexit has made us, that Trump is going to be choosing the next UK ambassador. Take back control, my arse!
    I think that's nonsense. But the point of an Ambassador is that he can consistently push our interests on a day to day basis which means that he needs to be listened to by the current administration. That is not going to happen. Whether you think that an early trade deal with the US is likely or not (I think very unlikely) promoting that is government policy. How does he help that?
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,482
    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
    This is a pretty clear comment - even a year on from today it is possible that we might still not have a clear idea who Trump’s opponent will be.....

    Unless you want Mike to actually tell you how to bet, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion about the short odds favourite from that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    alex. said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    He's only in post for another six months anyway. The damage removing him for doing his job to the wider foreign office would surely be far greater.
    I didn't know he only had 6 months left. I suspect a fair bit of that might be spent on leave and in an extended "handover".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,732
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
    That would still count for wrongful dismissal. The Washington Embassy is unfortunately the highest role in the Foreign Service so anywhere else would be a demotion. That cannot happen because somebody broke every rule in the book by leaking a cable to a scandal-monger and pseudo-journalist like Oakeshott, whom I sincerely hope gets locked up as she is barely less malign and even less honest than that drunken Nazi running Skwawkbox.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 39,393
    edited July 8
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
    That would still count for wrongful dismissal. The Washington Embassy is unfortunately the highest role in the Foreign Service so anywhere else would be a demotion. That cannot happen because somebody broke every rule in the book by leaking a cable to a scandal-monger and pseudo-journalist like Oakeshott, whom I sincerely hope gets locked up as she is barely less malign and even less honest than that drunken Nazi running Skwawkbox.
    Wrongful dismissal? I assume he serves at Her Majesty's pleasure.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,052
    I don't mean to come across all Hunchman, but the Trump-Fox News spat, and the leak of the ambassador's views are not unconnected.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,482
    Foxy said:

    I always think of Luntz as that guy who ran a newsnight focus group that tipped Cameron when he was an outsider. So I pay attention to him but I don't bet on American politics.

    Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.

    Election victory? Cameron is the only Tory leader to win a majority in a quarter century. Being pure and in opposition, the novelty wears off fairly quickly.
    Yeah that's the obvious answer - but they seemed to genuinely quite like him as well.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,284
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
    Isn't he retiring anyway in a few months. How about some 'leave, pre-retirement". Retirement advice courses, something like that.
    The whole business doesn't make Hunt look good, though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
    Harris is a skilled lawyer who is good at lawyer's tricks. She was effective cross examining Barr. She was good at making a sharp point in the debate. But as Edmund pointed out to date there has been no follow up or vision of what she wants other than to get rid of Trump.

    I picked her out as a contender at an early stage because of her having a state wide organisation in California which votes early this time and will give the winner there a huge advantage. That is still a consideration but she has disappointed and I agree her current price is absurd.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471
    rcs1000 said:

    Biden has always been a charisma free zone. Now, he's just a tired, old, gaffe prone, charisma free zone.

    His redeeming feature is that he was Obama's VP. And therefore Trump hates him. Because Trump hates anything associated with the Obama era.

    Biden also looks like he's hating the campaign.

    And remember, this is a guy who didn't want to stand against Hillary, as he thought it might be too hard.

    Oh yeah, because he announced so late, he's got a fairly rubbish organisation.

    Who wants to give me odds on him dropping out before the Iowa caucuses?

    I'll do a bet to the charity of your/my choice at evens.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 31,133
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't mean to come across all Hunchman, but the Trump-Fox News spat, and the leak of the ambassador's views are not unconnected.

    Have you found the connection to Finchley Road yet? ;)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
    This is a pretty clear comment - even a year on from today it is possible that we might still not have a clear idea who Trump’s opponent will be.....

    Unless you want Mike to actually tell you how to bet, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion about the short odds favourite from that.
    I'm betting this fine. But I've seen what seems like the last year of thread headers saying basically lay Boris, and only being able to dig out on stuff like Leadsom and Liddington tipped up below the line to lay and back respectively has got plenty of people out of trouble. So I'm going to call it out when I think above the line has it wrong.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 27,080

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
    Isn't he retiring anyway in a few months. How about some 'leave, pre-retirement". Retirement advice courses, something like that.
    The whole business doesn't make Hunt look good, though.
    That was really my point and, I fear, the motivation of the leaker.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,293

    Possible, though Isabel Oakeshott’s alignment is with the Banks/Wigmore/Farage mob, so I’d look for connections there.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,293
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't mean to come across all Hunchman, but the Trump-Fox News spat, and the leak of the ambassador's views are not unconnected.

    I think the Fox News outburst is more related to this

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 6,416

    rcs1000 said:

    I don't mean to come across all Hunchman, but the Trump-Fox News spat, and the leak of the ambassador's views are not unconnected.

    Have you found the connection to Finchley Road yet? ;)
    The Jewish Community Centre is in Finchley Road. That's it - you've got it!

    Mazel Tov. :)
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,471
    Andrew Yang can be laid at 48 for dem nomination and... 48 for next president. While I suppose there's a chance he could run and win as an independent, that looks like clear market manipulation for other reasons.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,143
    Scott_P said:
    Like the Washington Embassy, time to shoot the messenger again...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 55,155
    rkrkrk said:

    Andrew Yang can be laid at 48 for dem nomination and... 48 for next president. While I suppose there's a chance he could run and win as an independent, that looks like clear market manipulation for other reasons.

    He's rated a 6% chance for the nomination on predictit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 48,329
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    I imagine once things have quieted down a bit he will voluntarily move on, so it can be said it was not directly the reason.

    I see no one did add reasons to why Farage would be a good replacement last night. Shame.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    The Tory embrace of Trump will not end well for them or the UK.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    rkrkrk said:

    Andrew Yang can be laid at 48 for dem nomination and... 48 for next president. While I suppose there's a chance he could run and win as an independent, that looks like clear market manipulation for other reasons.

    It might be manipulation but in a thin market and given he has traded at shorter prices, it could equally be that Yang is one of those flavour-of-the-day candidates that pop up every now and again, was backed and now has drifted back out. His main idea seems to be universal basic income.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,589
    edited July 8
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
    This is a pretty clear comment - even a year on from today it is possible that we might still not have a clear idea who Trump’s opponent will be.....

    Unless you want Mike to actually tell you how to bet, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion about the short odds favourite from that.
    I'm betting this fine. But I've seen what seems like the last year of thread headers saying basically lay Boris, and only being able to dig out on stuff like Leadsom and Liddington tipped up below the line to lay and back respectively has got plenty of people out of trouble. So I'm going to call it out when I think above the line has it wrong.
    I'm not saying I'm a Betting Genius but I laid Boris twice during this contest and made a profit on those lays both times.

    Maybe a Betting Savant?

    😉
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    It shows how supine Brexit has made us, that Trump is going to be choosing the next UK ambassador. Take back control, my arse!

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,293

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,275

    Which "senior politician" fancies himself as ambassador to the US?

    Possible, though Isabel Oakeshott’s alignment is with the Banks/Wigmore/Farage mob, so I’d look for connections there.

    (I can almost see her house from here... maybe I should lean out the window and yell the question.)
    Or maybe just lean out your window and yell at her.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 16,275
    edited July 8
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Good morning. A very mixed morning on the news front, with the England Women's team making a horrendous mess of things. And who was the malevolent mole who leaked the Ambassadors candid emails. Isn't giving candid opinions what such people are supposed to do?

    You are of course right about the Ambassador but given that his private disparaging views have been made public I am very surprised that it has been decided that he remains in post. I don't see how he can represent our interests effectively anymore. Maybe yet another consequence of a zombie government here but also a question mark against Hunt's judgment.
    Hunt surely suspects who inside government is behind all this
    Perhaps. And I can see the reluctance to set a precedent by which an Ambassador can be removed like this. It would make candid assessments much more difficult in the future. But I still don't think that our interests can be promoted by the incumbent.
    How can he be sacked for somebody else's crime?

    Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.

    He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
    He's not going to be sacked but he should be moved. No doubt it will happen in a few months time.
    Wasn't he going to retire at the end of this year anyway?

    Edit: ah, I see someone else has made the point.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,832
    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    edited July 8
    deleted
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Scott_P said:
    The Sopel/Yelland mutual support looks circular but does this make Boris the leaker?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    edited July 8
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    "Currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden the 76 year old former vice president"

    He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!

    "At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."

    No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.

    "On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."

    What is justifying Harris' price ?

    The lack of a viable alternative. Where is the Trump of the Democrats?
    There are plenty of viable candidates. Why is Harris 2-1 ? Why the lack of comment in the header on her price and a diatribe against Ol' Joe who is third in the betting ?

    Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
    This is a pretty clear comment - even a year on from today it is possible that we might still not have a clear idea who Trump’s opponent will be.....

    Unless you want Mike to actually tell you how to bet, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion about the short odds favourite from that.
    I'm betting this fine. But I've seen what seems like the last year of thread headers saying basically lay Boris, and only being able to dig out on stuff like Leadsom and Liddington tipped up below the line to lay and back respectively has got plenty of people out of trouble. So I'm going to call it out when I think above the line has it wrong.
    Fair enough to critique Mike’s opinions, but it seems mildly unreasonable to take him to task for not expressing the ones you want.
    (& FWIW, I have also gone short on Harris over the last couple of days - though I still think she has a pretty good chance of eventually securing the nomination.)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,335
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't mean to come across all Hunchman, but the Trump-Fox News spat, and the leak of the ambassador's views are not unconnected.

    I think it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the leak originated in the Finchley Road. :wink:
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,788
    On the ambassador leak thing, this is interesting:

    Mr Hunt said he was "doing his job" as "frank opinions" from ambassadors are vital.

    But in a bid to smooth over the Transatlantic rift, Mr Hunt added: "It’s also important to say this was a personal view. It’s not the view of the British government. It’s not my view.


    I think Hunt should have said it was the ambassador's "professional" view rather than personal view.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 3,181
    Brexit can deliver lots of control for the UK.

    As in it being controlled by the lunatic in the WH. But Leavers seem to have no problem with being the US lapdog , but freak out at the thought of working closely with other European nations by being in the EU.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    The interview was pathetic and he got away with claiming we want a trade deal, that Johnson would negotiate a new deal to leave the EU , that he would solve the NI issues and finally stop a Marxist government getting elected without a single challenge.
    No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 10,335

    Scott_P said:
    The Sopel/Yelland mutual support looks circular but does this make Boris the leaker?
    Still awaiting a Boris denial... the longer we wait the more likely the story seems.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    Remember Trump won only 45% of the Republican primary vote on 2016, so the 52% of Republicans supporters who think it extremely important he is re elected will be the core Trump supporters.

    However Trump could not have beaten Hillary without Cruz, Kasich and Rubio supporters coming over to him in the general election. If the Democrats want to tempt some of them over to their side they need a candidate like Biden who can do so, the likes of Warren will not even if Democratic voters will be fired up behind her to stop a Trump second term.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 21,011
    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    The interview was pathetic and he got away with claiming we want a trade deal, that Johnson would negotiate a new deal to leave the EU , that he would solve the NI issues and finally stop a Marxist government getting elected without a single challenge.
    No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
    Don't worry - Fox has just been on R4 explaining how he is off to the US to talk trade with Ivanka.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 3,181
    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    The interview was pathetic and he got away with claiming we want a trade deal, that Johnson would negotiate a new deal to leave the EU , that he would solve the NI issues and finally stop a Marxist government getting elected without a single challenge.
    No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
    Was that John Humphrys on Radio 4 doing the interview? That would figure then !
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    Both diplomats and politicians need to be able to flatter Trump without actually meaning it.

    The leaking of the cables is in the interest only of those who are sincere about flattering him. Which is not a smart way to treat with a transactional president in possession of a massive ego.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,206

    Scott_P said:
    The Sopel/Yelland mutual support looks circular but does this make Boris the leaker?
    Why would Farage leave the BXP when it is in a four way fight on around 20%?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,371
    nico67 said:

    Brexit can deliver lots of control for the UK.

    As in it being controlled by the lunatic in the WH. But Leavers seem to have no problem with being the US lapdog , but freak out at the thought of working closely with other European nations by being in the EU.

    It’s certainly hard to imagine Farage calling for the replacement of a diplomat whose unflattering cables about Europe had been leaked...

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    Ashcroft's poll yesterday had Cameron, Blair, Corbyn, Sturgeon and Swinson all less popular with Leave voters than Donald Trump on a net basis, even if Trump got the highest net negative rating with Remain voters

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/#more-16028
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252

    This doctors' shortage due to pension arrangements looks like it could be easily fixed so it is surprising neither leadership candidate has mentioned the issue.

    I’m confused that doctors are saying they “can’t afford” to work the extra hours

    I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)

    Are these greater than 100%?

    If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.

    I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188
    edited July 8

    Nigelb said:

    Above all gentlemen, not too much zeal.

    Advice for a diplomat; for a candidate, nothing succeeds so well as success...
    Or in the days of Trump & Johnson "nothing succeeds like excess"......

    FPT, Lord Ashcroft polls:

    Which of these characters, then, would people rather have as Prime Minister – competent but conventional and a bit smug, or strong and amusing but unreliable and potentially dangerous? For 2017 Conservatives and those who voted Leave in the referendum, it’s Boris at a canter. But for voters as a whole, Jeremy Hunt comes out on top. Head to head against Jeremy Corbyn, Boris wins by 18 points – but Jeremy Hunt beats his Labour namesake by a 28-point margin. Forced to choose, Britain would prefer a Hunt-led Tory government to a Corbyn-led Labour one by 60 per cent to 40 per cent, but a Boris-led administration to its Corbynite alternative by just 8 points.

    Remain voters account for the difference. Seeing Boris as not just willing but eager to leave the EU without a deal, they would rather have the safer-seeming Hunt than Corbyn in Downing Street, but prefer Corbyn to Johnson by a wide margin.>/i>

    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/
    Yet a Boris led Tory Party would be on 24.5% with Labour second on 20.7% in that same poll and a Hunt led Tories only on 22% with the Brexit Party second on 20.5%
    https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/
  • O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 26,206

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060

    Scott_P said:
    The Sopel/Yelland mutual support looks circular but does this make Boris the leaker?
    Why would Farage leave the BXP when it is in a four way fight on around 20%?
    Why would the Conservatives want Farage exiled to Washington? That's the question and you have given the answer. It would be the most transparently cynical appointment since our wartime governor of the Bahamas but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 63,188

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
    Javid Chancellor, Truss Business
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    Scott_P said:
    Whoever leaked this material had first to have possessed it, so a minister or civil servant, not Bannon or Farage.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 3,271
    nico67 said:

    nichomar said:

    Scott_P said:

    Taking back control means lying down, rolling over and doing Donald Trump’s bidding.



    The Conservative party will discover that prostrating the UK at the feet of Donald Trump will not be electorally popular. It will certainly increase anti-Tory tactical voting.

    The interview was pathetic and he got away with claiming we want a trade deal, that Johnson would negotiate a new deal to leave the EU , that he would solve the NI issues and finally stop a Marxist government getting elected without a single challenge.
    No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
    Was that John Humphrys on Radio 4 doing the interview? That would figure then !
    No the usual sky male presenter on sunrise who’s name escapes me and is normally more challenging.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,252

    Above all gentlemen, not too much zeal.

    Make like a swan
  • felixfelix Posts: 9,095
    eristdoof said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    On BBC news Jon Sopel says some Foreign Office figures think it is possible Nigel Farage could be appointed to replace Sir Kim Darroch as British Ambassador to Washington DC

    Whether one likes Farage or not, how would that be a good idea? What experience does he have that would translate well to being a diplomat? The incumbent liking him is hardly a sound way of choosing a diplomatic representative, even if the frank views of the current one having been leaked clearly won't be liked by the incumbent.
    You don't have to be a professional diplomat to be an Ambassador, indeed the current US Ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, is a businessman and pal of Trump's
    How many UK ambassadors are not professional diplomats ?
    Convention can be dispensed with if necessary
    Peter Jay was Ambassador in late 1970s despite being Callaghan's son - in - law!
    Mrs Thatcher also wanted to appoint a non-diplomat as Ambassador to the United States but Edward Heath declined the offer.
    I remember this. As my dad heard the news he said, "She just wants him out of the way".
    Which has form with leaking to the press? :)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,060
    HYUFD said:

    O/T, on the next Chancellor of the Exchequer market, I have put a few quid on Esther McVey as next CoE at 50/1 on Ladbrokes. I think Johnson will appoint a woman as CoE, part to deflect charges of sexism, ,part because of the symbolism.
    If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).

    Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.

    Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.

    That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.

    Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.

    I have a few quid on Truss from some weeks ago, but I think it will be Javid now.
    Javid Chancellor, Truss Business
    Javid can probably choose his own job. Does he want to be Chancellor rather than Home or Foreign Secretary? He might but the recent record of Chancellors attempting to move next door is surely not encouraging.
This discussion has been closed.