Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Free Money & Stupid Odds

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited October 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Free Money & Stupid Odds

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton. Remember her? Failed Presidential candidate last time around, not standing this time. Would lose, badly, if she had stood.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.
  • rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.

    Well if you are going to live in a country with outmoded laws.....

    Btw, how many guns you own now? Used any of them yet? ;)
  • Many thanks to Viewcode for his excellent book review. It reminds me why I had to block Matthew Goodwin on twitter. His academic work is excellent and well worth digesting but his advocacy is grating.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,955
    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.
  • Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
  • In the Land of Self-Defeat https://nyti.ms/2IpVNmd
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492
    The news that Trump has abandoned the Kurds to Turkey, after the Kurds did so much of the fighting against ISIS, is bound to cause no end of trouble in years to come. A bad day.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 2,274
    edited October 7
    Interesting conversation with a guy doing a path for me yesterday demonstrating the current Heineken effect in politics. Aware of Mr Bercow and some very definite opinions indeed about the possibility of Mr B becoming temporary PM.

    Not clear whether this was from detailed listening to Brexit Debates on the Parliament Channel or Bercow's house style of a blend between Just William and Trollope Refugee having achieved some self-publicity.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    You seem to be assuming 50% chance that if Trump is not the candidate then Pence will be. I think that is too short.

    If Trump pulls out of the nomination race before February then there will be normal primaries, and I can't see Pence being odds on to win that.
    If Trump pulls out during or after the primary season then what happens will depend on whether the primaries are/were contested or not. And what happens next could be quite messy. I don't see the Rep party just accepting Pence because Trump has nominated him.

    Only in the situation where Trump pulls out at a point when it is too late to realistically find another candidate would Pence be a shoe in.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492
    I've been in Ireland for a family wedding. It was notable that, unlike last Christmas or the wedding a year ago, no-one asked me (the Englishman in the extended family) about Brexit at all.

    It's all too awful, boring or infuriating to want to mention.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 16,229

    The news that Trump has abandoned the Kurds to Turkey, after the Kurds did so much of the fighting against ISIS, is bound to cause no end of trouble in years to come. A bad day.

    The Kurds are used to being let down, of course. They spent most of last century (AIUI) being promised, or at least offered something like a state of their own, and then having the prospect taken away again.

    They could do to get their (anti) Crusader Saladin, back!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,561
    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.

    Or you would be getting VPN.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,456
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,561
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    Betfair does not settle nominee markets until the party convention has finally decided
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    The price on Hilary Clinton is interesting. It essentially shows us how strong name recognition is not only in the polls but also in the betting markets. This should be a big warning for Biden's betting price and polling figures.

    In the polling process, people who have never heard of Amy Kloubachar are asked the question who would you vote for in an election Biden vs Trump, and then in the next question Kloubachar vs Trump. Of course Biden is going to get better poll results than Kloubachar in such a comparison.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 27,418
    This is impressive: Spurs ground transforming for NFL

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/49954966
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,118

    This is impressive: Spurs ground transforming for NFL

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/49954966

    Will it be permanent considering Spurs recent form?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    edited October 7
    A potential flaw in the Pence plan: https://time.com/5692947/mike-pence-impeachment/
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    This depends on the deadline for primary candidates in each state. The primaries are not one single election with different polling dates but 50 different elections. If there is enough time to get new candidates then Trump anouncing late in March that he wont after all stand for reelection then the second half of the primaries would be chaotic.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 1,955
    Interesting header, thanks.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 985
    O/T

    A droll thought has occurred to me.

    What happens if the EU respond to Mr Johnson later this week by saying something along these lines:

    'Look, your plan has some merit and the makings of a deal. We all need 6 months to flesh it out properly.'

    Dead in a ditch talk is going to look as stupid as the man uttering it, isn't it?

    I'd love to see them call his bluff on this.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 985
    timmo said:

    This is impressive: Spurs ground transforming for NFL

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/49954966

    Will it be permanent considering Spurs recent form?

    :smiley:
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    An interesting question is what happens if Trump pulls out after the last primary has voted and each states had chosen Trump in its primary? Unlike the Dem race the Rep party assigns all delegates in a state to one candidate.

    In this scenario Pence is not an eligible candidate (there are no Running mates for the primaries), but there is no eligible candidate. There must be other obscure rules which kick in here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    This is impressive: Spurs ground transforming for NFL

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/49954966

    Its nothing compared to the transformation OGS has achieved on the Man U football team.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    I have been laying Hillary Clinton for months at longer odds. The current price is completely mad.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    DavidL said:

    This is impressive: Spurs ground transforming for NFL

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/49954966

    Its nothing compared to the transformation OGS has achieved on the Man U football team.
    From cloggers to cloggers in 9 months.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    I’ve spent the weekend with my mum (as tour guide in Budapest). Boris Johnson is obviously getting support from new places because the cohort of older (and I expect Leave-voting) women my mum circulates with is apparently appalled by him. She moued at “filthy toerag” but only because that’s not the type of language my mum approves of.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 11,035
    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    Not saying it is particularly likely, but Pence at 60/1 for next POTUS is too long.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006

    O/T

    A droll thought has occurred to me.

    What happens if the EU respond to Mr Johnson later this week by saying something along these lines:

    'Look, your plan has some merit and the makings of a deal. We all need 6 months to flesh it out properly.'

    Dead in a ditch talk is going to look as stupid as the man uttering it, isn't it?

    I'd love to see them call his bluff on this.

    Well, the crazy bit is that that is pretty much what the EU does think.

    Boris's plan is unfinished. It's a "Heads of Terms" not a contract or a treaty. There are bits the EU will probably give in on (such as allowing the Northern Irish Assembly the final say). But there are other bits that are simply not spelled out in proper detail, such as the all important question of dispute resolution.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343

    O/T

    A droll thought has occurred to me.

    What happens if the EU respond to Mr Johnson later this week by saying something along these lines:

    'Look, your plan has some merit and the makings of a deal. We all need 6 months to flesh it out properly.'

    Dead in a ditch talk is going to look as stupid as the man uttering it, isn't it?

    I'd love to see them call his bluff on this.

    "The EU have offered an extension on the basis that a great deal is just around the corner. I have decided to accept this offer to get a Great Brexit done and dusted".

    He can ride that one out. It's an "extension just because there is no other option" which will see him lying in a ditch.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump. Republicans will want someone to continue his legacy. Unless you think Ivanka is standing, Mike Pence is the obvious candidate.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    rcs1000 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump. Republicans will want someone to continue his legacy. Unless you think Ivanka is standing, Mike Pence is the obvious candidate.
    Isn’t the problem with Mike Pence that he also has potential problems with the Ukrainian controversy? If it lays Donald Trump low, everyone who has touched it is going to be out of bounds too.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    Foxy said:

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    Not saying it is particularly likely, but Pence at 60/1 for next POTUS is too long.
    Next POTUS is a totally different event from Rep nomination for WH2020 and is a totally different event from WH2020.
    Of course Pence should be favourite for next POTUS because it is completely unclear who else (Dem or other Rep) it would be.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,516
    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    It's going to look like My Girl Ell Double You sweeping all before her.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,343
    rcs1000 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump.
    Is this true? If that is the case then the huge Republican party has shifted even more than the Conservative party has shifted. Four years ago this sentence would have been laughed out of court.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    It's going to look like My Girl Ell Double You sweeping all before her.
    Perhaps. That makes for a boring story. The media will want an interesting story. Someone else is going to be hyped up as the potential next big thing. The question is: who?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    He was soundly beaten by the gay Mayor of a small Indiana town and by geriatric socialist.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 27,006
    eristdoof said:

    rcs1000 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump.
    Is this true? If that is the case then the huge Republican party has shifted even more than the Conservative party has shifted. Four years ago this sentence would have been laughed out of court.
    His favourable numbers with Republicans are excellent. It's with independents and democrats he's a disaster.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,516
    rcs1000 said:

    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    Do you think so? I don't think Pence would be in poll position. I have seen nothing which makes me think that he would or could fight a strong Nomination campaign, let alone Presidential campaign.

    In the Ford example, he had a year and a half in the White House before the primaries began and had enough time to bed in his presidential credentials. LBJ might be a better example.
    The Republican Party is the party of Donald Trump. Republicans will want someone to continue his legacy. Unless you think Ivanka is standing, Mike Pence is the obvious candidate.
    The Republican party is the party of Nixon.

    This is the legacy.

    Regan was a Nixon loyalist to the very end, Bush Snr learnt everything he knew in the Nixon administration. They both retained and promoted key Nixon officials.

    Being a Nixon loyalist, defending the indefensible, was rewarded.

    The Republican party is still furious that Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court failed.

    So what I'm saying is you are right.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476

    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546
    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.

    Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Good morning, everyone.

    Some good tips, Mr. 1000. My wallet's a bit thin, but those who have a bit to spend will do well to take your suggestions.
  • Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    It's going to look like My Girl Ell Double You sweeping all before her.
    Perhaps. That makes for a boring story. The media will want an interesting story. Someone else is going to be hyped up as the potential next big thing. The question is: who?
    You'll be sick as a pig if it's HC!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,934
    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    but they're all we've got!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951



    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.

    Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
    Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307

    Alistair said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    It's going to look like My Girl Ell Double You sweeping all before her.
    Perhaps. That makes for a boring story. The media will want an interesting story. Someone else is going to be hyped up as the potential next big thing. The question is: who?
    You'll be sick as a pig if it's HC!
    Don’t even joke about it!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    Considerably younger.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?

    Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476

    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    but they're all we've got!
    Which is why their behaviour is such a disgrace.

    Were there any justice in the world, were there any concept of leadership or responsibility, were our Home Secretary someone who really valued law and order rather than smirked about it for the purpose of cheap applause, there would be resignations and significant changes to how the police approach investigations and proper retraining.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    Considerably younger.
    With Warren and Sanders leading the field, not really.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 27,307
    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    Considerably younger.
    With Warren and Sanders leading the field, not really.
    I think we will have to assume Sanders is out as well.

    Even Warren is a fair bit younger than those two.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?

    Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
    Well no.

    But for God’s sake, is it too much to expect people to be competent in their job? Or even have some sense of shame and responsibility. Clearly it is.

    I’ve not been to the blasted police training college and I seem to know more about how investigations should be done than these bozos or even the Victim’s Commissioner, one Vera Baird QC.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    Considerably younger.
    With Warren and Sanders leading the field, not really.
    I think we will have to assume Sanders is out as well.

    Even Warren is a fair bit younger than those two.
    She;s 70, born in 1949. I mean its not so much where is the next generation but the next 3?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    edited October 7
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?

    Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
    Well no.

    But for God’s sake, is it too much to expect people to be competent in their job? Or even have some sense of shame and responsibility. Clearly it is.

    I’ve not been to the blasted police training college and I seem to know more about how investigations should be done than these bozos or even the Victim’s Commissioner, one Vera Baird QC.
    You are expecting people in the police and ancillary organisations to be appointed on the basis of talent and experience rather than cronyism and doing favours for the right people?

    You, whose job description is 'trying to stop bankers from being fuckwits?'

    Yes, Cyclefree, it is too much to expect. That would be an intelligent request and when has the Home Office ever behaved intelligently?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    Considerably younger.
    With Warren and Sanders leading the field, not really.
    I think we will have to assume Sanders is out as well.

    Even Warren is a fair bit younger than those two.
    She;s 70, born in 1949. I mean its not so much where is the next generation but the next 3?
    So if she were elected and served two full terms, she would be roughly the same age on leaving office that Biden is now.

    I do agree it's bizarre that the younger generation appear so overshadowed. I cannot help but feel Obama missed a trick by staying with Biden as VP in his second term. He could and should have brought through somebody younger and more dynamic.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 21,631
    In light of recent discussions, this is interesting:

    Ex-Barclays executives face fraud trial over Qatar rescue
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49951412
  • rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.

    I see I’m going to teach you how to be modest about your own tips.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
    I did a post about it at the time. The key paragraph, which sets out the new test for prorogation is paragraph 50. It contains at least 3, arguably 4, entirely subjective assessments which no Court is qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.

    I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
  • On topic, I agree with Robert.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.


    As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.

    Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.

    But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
    I did a post about it at the time. The key paragraph, which sets out the new test for prorogation is paragraph 50. It contains at least 3, arguably 4, entirely subjective assessments which no Court is qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.

    I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?
    Thanks.

    I think you would find the Sumption Reith lectures interesting if you haven’t already heard them.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 15,476
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?

    Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
    Well no.

    But for God’s sake, is it too much to expect people to be competent in their job? Or even have some sense of shame and responsibility. Clearly it is.

    I’ve not been to the blasted police training college and I seem to know more about how investigations should be done than these bozos or even the Victim’s Commissioner, one Vera Baird QC.
    You are expecting people in the police and ancillary organisations to be appointed on the basis of talent and experience rather than cronyism and doing favours for the right people?

    You, whose job description is 'trying to stop bankers from being fuckwits?'

    Yes, Cyclefree, it is too much to expect. That would be an intelligent request and when has the Home Office ever behaved intelligently?
    I live in hope. I am perpetually disappointed. It is why I am a cynic.

    On that note, I had better be off and earn my living.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 26,951
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.


    As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.

    Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.

    But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
    I agree. The SC's decision is an inevitable and regrettable result arising from Boris' appalling behaviour and the fault lies with him. The fact that it was a supposedly Conservative PM who behaved in this manner shows how the old conventions and boundaries are weakening. We will all regret it.
  • ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Andy_JS said:

    "The police watchdog has been strongly criticised by a retired High Court judge for its review of how detectives handled false claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.

    The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) cleared five detectives of wrongdoing, but Sir Richard Henriques said its review was "flawed".

    Sir Richard said it "fell well short of an effective investigation"."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49955628

    Sir Richard is undoubtedly correct, and nobody should be surprised. The cynic in me suspects the investigation was deliberately botched, but it is unlikely we will ever know.
    The police’s first instinct when criticised in this case has been to protect their own.

    Based on what we have learnt in this case, neither the Met nor Wiltshire Police nor IPOC are fit for purpose.
    Umm, Cyclefree, I hate to take issue but did anyone think they were fit for purpose before?

    Because if not, we haven't even learned that.
    Well no.

    But for God’s sake, is it too much to expect people to be competent in their job? Or even have some sense of shame and responsibility. Clearly it is.

    I’ve not been to the blasted police training college and I seem to know more about how investigations should be done than these bozos or even the Victim’s Commissioner, one Vera Baird QC.
    You are expecting people in the police and ancillary organisations to be appointed on the basis of talent and experience rather than cronyism and doing favours for the right people?

    You, whose job description is 'trying to stop bankers from being fuckwits?'

    Yes, Cyclefree, it is too much to expect. That would be an intelligent request and when has the Home Office ever behaved intelligently?
    A proper investigation would have consumed huge amounts of police time for years. How much easier to just hand the job to a couple of hopeless plods and tell them not to try too hard. Naturally they are defended when they fail, because they were never intended to succeed.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.

    What’s the risk that Pence gets taken out by the Ruskis because they know their boy is going down and they want his final act to be to nominate a new VP?

    Does that need Senate confirmation?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
    I did a post about it at the time. The key paragraph, which sets out the new test for prorogation is paragraph 50. It contains at least 3, arguably 4, entirely subjective assessments which no Court is qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.

    I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?

    Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that the government cannot shut down Parliament for extended periods in the absence of due cause or thevexplicit approval of Parliament itself. Due cause is, of course, subjective - but so is everything. That’s why you listen to arguments, apply tests and come to a judgement. The government could supply no reason for closing Parliament down for five weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.

  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,546
    DavidL said:



    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.

    Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
    Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
    I think he can hold onto his current support, a large portion are big fans. I don't know how much the health would put off swing voters but in terms of Biden voters just watching him in comparison to Biden would probably kill most doubts, he comes across as one of the most energetic candidates and Biden the least. Those trying to push his health against him will be much the same people who have been negative on him for a long time, I think constant negativity reaches a point where it just loses effectiveness eventually.

    He also has a good way of turning his own health around into advocacy for medicare for all, which will put some critics off pressing the issue too much or give him a good opportunity when they do.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    Not to mention Pence's own involvement in the Ukraine mess.
    In the still unlikely, thought not impossible event of Trump going down, I'm not convinced Pence's chances are that brilliant.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 8,492
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.


    As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.

    Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.

    But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
    I agree. The SC's decision is an inevitable and regrettable result arising from Boris' appalling behaviour and the fault lies with him. The fact that it was a supposedly Conservative PM who behaved in this manner shows how the old conventions and boundaries are weakening. We will all regret it.
    While I was delighted and relieved by the Supreme Court judgement I feel that it should also be pointed out that they were forced to step in because the Commons refuses to replace a Prime Minister that they do not have Confidence in.

    Had they done so then the Supreme Court would not have been called upon to act.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    I am struggling to see how “No, I did not have an affair with Boris Johnson” can be weaponised against him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 15,200
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    But Ford took extraordinary precautions to distance himself from Nixon.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,773

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
    I did a post about it at the time. The key paragraph, which sets out the new test for prorogation is paragraph 50. It contains at least 3, arguably 4, entirely subjective assessments which no Court is qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.

    I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?

    Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that the government cannot shut down Parliament for extended periods in the absence of due cause or thevexplicit approval of Parliament itself. Due cause is, of course, subjective - but so is everything. That’s why you listen to arguments, apply tests and come to a judgement. The government could supply no reason for closing Parliament down for five weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.

    BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Mr. Observer, quite. But refusing to answer means the question will be asked repeatedly.

    Was he still with his wife at the time?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 20,384

    I am struggling to see how “No, I did not have an affair with Boris Johnson” can be weaponised against him.

    So much for your fabled womaniser skills, eh, Boris.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If Trump stands down or is brought down by one of his many scandals, I would expect every republican with a pulse to jump in. Don't see why republicans would pick Pence when they could go for someone more exciting.

    But that requires Trump to be brought low before the primary season kicks off. If (at least some) primaries already happened, and Pence is now in the White House, how are these other republicans going to jump in?
    Not sure I follow. If the primaries have already happened, then Trump is the nominee and the bet will have lost. If Trump quits halfway through the primary season, then his delegates don't automatically go to Pence. Rules differ state by state I think. I don't think it's sure at all they would go for Pence.
    If Trump goes suddenly, via resignation, 25th Amendment or the grim reaper, Pence becomes POTUS. That would surely give him pole position for Nov 2020.

    Indeed that is how Gerald Ford became Republican candidate in 1976.
    But Ford took extraordinary precautions to distance himself from Nixon.
    And Ford only took over in Nixon's second term, Nixon won re election before he resigned as a result of a likely impeachment and conviction.

    Ford also had to see off a strong GOP primary challenge from Ronald Reagan in 1976 before he even got the nomination and he then went on to lose the general election to Jimmy Carter, albeit narrowly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    edited October 7
    ydoethur said:

    In light of recent discussions, this is interesting:

    Ex-Barclays executives face fraud trial over Qatar rescue
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49951412

    Ex Barclays CEO John Varley was acquitted in July and correctly so as his actions saved the taxpayer billions, if anyone should have been in the dock it should have been the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth not Varley
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    He was soundly beaten by the gay Mayor of a small Indiana town and by geriatric socialist.
    Notre Dame is not your typical “small Indiana town”
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081

    rcs1000 said:

    What an outstanding article. If I were resident in the UK, I'd be taking the excellent advice in the header.

    Well if you are going to live in a country with outmoded laws.....

    Btw, how many guns you own now? Used any of them yet? ;)
    What are the odds of the Ruskis taking Pence out because they see their boy going down and they want his last act to be to appoint his successor?

    (Does a new VP need Senate confirmation?)

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,026
    DavidL said:



    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.

    Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
    Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
    Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888
    edited October 7
    Green Party call for the Home Office to be abolished to reduce the prison population and make immigration fairer

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/green-party-policies-home-office-abolished-conference-2019-643450
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 6
    On the topic, as a non-betting person can I ask where these sorts of silly odds come from? Is it the result of just a few silly people putting up bets at bad odds, or does it take a consistent pressure from a lot of people thinking that eg a Clinton nomination is much more likely than it really is to drag betfair's offered prices down to these levels?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.


    As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.

    Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.

    But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
    The problem was Parliament’s original land grab. That’s not to say Boris behaved well (he didn’t) but you need to look for the original sin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 62,888

    DavidL said:



    DavidL said:

    Yet more problems for Biden: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464437-krystal-ball-bidens-third-quarter-fundraising-numbers-are-pathetic

    I think it is worth giving thought to what the Democratic field is going to look like when he is no longer in it.

    I have seen stuff in the past which suggested a decent crossover between Biden support and Sanders as a next preference. This was perhaps a couple of months back so things could have changed since then but if Biden starts falling back and there is a decent crossover still in support it could really help Sanders.

    Whilst Warren may attract some potential Sanders supporters I wonder if Biden supporters might actually be a better pool for Sanders and not that good for Warren.
    Sanders has to persuade people that his health scare is nothing to worry about. Given his age and the seriousness of the condition that is not going to be easy. I also find it more than a bit weird that so many Democrats are happy to vote for someone who is not actually a member of their party. At the moment this race looks Warren's to lose to me. Early days of course but none of them are having anything close to the impact a young Obama did.
    Sanders found the ceiling of his support last time, when up against Hillary Clinton who, long being assured of the nomination, tolerated rather than opposed him. Sanders could never be the nominee; he is the Rand Paul of the Democatic Party, with lots of followers but not enough of them.
    Had Sanders won 1% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus to add to his New Hampshire win then likely have been nominee
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,500
    edited October 7

    I am struggling to see how “No, I did not have an affair with Boris Johnson” can be weaponised against him.

    Because then him recommending her for jobs at which she was horribly unqualified would have been a reflection on the value of his considered judgement and not on his sexual urging? ;)

    Like if you watch, eg. SCD because it’s a really good show and not because forced to sit through it out of obedience to your other half ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 25,081

    I am struggling to see how “No, I did not have an affair with Boris Johnson” can be weaponised against him.

    Accusations that she is lying and asking Boris to confirm?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,418
    Charles said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.


    As you know all law is intimately bound up with politics, in the widest sense. Even the very idea that the ruler should be bound by the law was a profoundly political statement when first expressed.

    Nonetheless over time we have been pretty good in this country at developing a system which seems to understand where the boundaries are between law and politics in a narrow sense. The US has a different way of approaching this even though it grew out of the English system and takes much from it. You cannot simply take one case from the US and transpose it here. There is a delicate balancing act between the three branches of the US government, in part because the Founding Fathers thought hard about these issues when drawing up the US Constitution. We have done it in another way.

    But when one bit of government behaves in a way which upends all normal and generally understood conventions and rules then it is only right that other parts intervene. Indeed it may be necessary. That seems very political. But we should remember why it became necessary: because the executive seems to have adopted a “end justifies all means” approach to governance, something which is profoundly at odds with the normal way of doing things here.
    The problem was Parliament’s original land grab. That’s not to say Boris behaved well (he didn’t) but you need to look for the original sin
    It was forced into it. Look at those that had to come to an agreement to make it happen, they aren't natural bedfellows.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 51,339
    Welcome to PB, Mr. 215.

    Can't answer categorically but I think it's a name recognition thing. Probably why David Miliband has short odds (relatively) as next Labour leader when he'd stopped being an MP.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 31,701
    tlg86 said:

    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    And for those who thought that the Supreme Court's recent decision was a good idea have a look at this and weep: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/463756-scotus-2020-forecast-a-category-5-political-hurricane

    Politicised law. Its just too dangerous to mess about with.

    Allowing a government to suspend democracy without boundaries would also have been politicising the law.
    I can see that argument which is why what Boris tried was so disgraceful. Our system works largely on self restraint. He showed none and neither did the SC. Neither was an improvement on the status quo ante.
    Genuinely interested in where you think the SC erred in law in their decision.
    I did a post about it at theis qualified to make and is very unlikely to have the relevant information to make. It was an enormous land grab into matters which previously were in the political and not the legal sphere.

    I acknowledge that they felt obliged to do this because Boris was taking the piss (as Alastair memorably summarised) but once these doors are open they are very hard to close again. The latest nonsense in the Court of Session is a good example. Is this really how we want our politics to be? Dominated by those willing and able to run off to the Courts at the drop of a hat?

    Johnson taking the piss was the problem. Not sure how you eliminate a populist politician’s desire to do that from any system. What we now know is that thefive weeks beyond the fact it wanted to. That, surely, is not good enough. If the decision had gone the other way what would have stopped an eight week closure next time, or an eight month one? At some point there has to be a line and in our system only the courts or Parliament can draw it.

    BiB - Surely you've answered your own question. As @DavidL rightly points out, this was a land grab by the Supreme Court. Of course, it's not that big a deal as there's nothing to stop a future government abolishing the Supreme Court or passing legislation that formalises the limits of prorogation.

    It was not a land grab. It was the highest Court in the land doing what it has always done: clarifying an aspect of our unwritten constitution. And, as has always been the case, if Parliament does not like it, it can change the law. That, as things currently stand, is that the government cannot close down Parliament for an extended period without its permission or without due cause.

This discussion has been closed.