Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio takes over the Republican nominee favourite slot on B

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio takes over the Republican nominee favourite slot on Betfair

Florida Senator Marco Rubio ousts ex-Florida governor, Jeb Bush, as GOP nominee Betfair betting favourite pic.twitter.com/TI0ObR5IG7

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • 2 disappointing draws.....

    Would have taken those 3 days ago but now both a bit of a let down
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    2 disappointing draws.....

    Would have taken those 3 days ago but now both a bit of a let down

    Agree entirely.
  • Stops the terrible run of defeats vs Liverpool, but they were virtually down to a 2nd reserves team today especially upfront.... should have been a great chance to actually win a game vs them.

    As for the cricket. At least there was some excitement today.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020

    Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

    And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

    Why be surprised it's turned messy...it's a cynical measure that's targeted on the poor. It just exposes this government for what it is,
    People say that about everything this government does (which is one reason why such claims rarely convince me) - that the public might end up agreeing, for once, is potentially surprising, though it has felt all along this one might be more effective, given even some Tories have had doubts (if not about the intention, then the perception).

    Ah, Cricket, what a bizarre and wonderful game you can be to make people feel disappointed at a draw after an entire week of expecting nothing but.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Rubio needs to win Iowa to have a chance, if Trump wins Iowa he probably wins New Hampshire too and the momentum will make him nominee. Rubio is probably the GOP's best candidate but his pro immigration views are not popular with the GOP base who want a more red meat candidate after losing two elections with a moderate nominee
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    kle4 said:

    Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

    And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

    Why be surprised it's turned messy...it's a cynical measure that's targeted on the poor. It just exposes this government for what it is,
    People say that about everything this government does (which is one reason why such claims rarely convince me) - that the public might end up agreeing, for once, is potentially surprising, though it has felt all along this one might be more effective, given even some Tories have had doubts (if not about the intention, then the perception).

    Ah, Cricket, what a bizarre and wonderful game you can be to make people feel disappointed at a draw after an entire week of expecting nothing but.
    makes the American rounders look exciting
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    Sandpit said:

    2 disappointing draws.....

    Would have taken those 3 days ago but now both a bit of a let down

    Agree entirely.
    See the cricket bet came in, but a bit closer in hindsight than a 1-11 should be xD
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    The "Lay Bush" strategy as recommended by various here seems to be working :)
  • Test Cricket - a "game" invented, played and watched by, er, people with far too much time on their hands! :lol:
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Pulpstar said:

    The "Lay Bush" strategy as recommended by various here seems to be working :)

    It has been very profitable for me. I have been laying since 2.9 ish.

    Rubio has his work cut out. If Trump drops out of the race a huge chunk of his support goes to Carson. If Carson drops out of the race a huge chunk of his support goes to Trump. Only if both candidates drop out will Rubio benefit. Rubio is a lay for now.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    MP_SE said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The "Lay Bush" strategy as recommended by various here seems to be working :)

    It has been very profitable for me. I have been laying since 2.9 ish.

    Rubio has his work cut out. If Trump drops out of the race a huge chunk of his support goes to Carson. If Carson drops out of the race a huge chunk of his support goes to Trump. Only if both candidates drop out will Rubio benefit. Rubio is a lay for now.
    Indeed and Cruz would benefit from either of those two dropping out too
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited October 2015

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm watching all the forgotten things on my dvr!

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    edited October 2015
    Sort of bizarre but NIcola Sturgeon's quite excellent speech is currently live on BBC2, BBC News, BBC Parliament and Sky News.

    Better coverage than Lizzie Windsor gets at Xmas.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    kle4 said:

    Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

    And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

    Why be surprised it's turned messy...it's a cynical measure that's targeted on the poor. It just exposes this government for what it is,
    People say that about everything this government does (which is one reason why such claims rarely convince me) - that the public might end up agreeing, for once, is potentially surprising, though it has felt all along this one might be more effective, given even some Tories have had doubts (if not about the intention, then the perception).

    Ah, Cricket, what a bizarre and wonderful game you can be to make people feel disappointed at a draw after an entire week of expecting nothing but.
    But with over four years until the next election, if it is deemed right from a policy perspective but difficult from a perception one, now is exactly the time to do it. I don't know enough about the details to have an opinion, nor any skin in the game to motivate me to inform myself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    Yes surely not OGH hoping to strike it lucky again with Rubio?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    ...shaking like a leaf......honest...really quivering .. heheh
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    2 disappointing draws.....

    Would have taken those 3 days ago but now both a bit of a let down

    Agree entirely.
    See the cricket bet came in, but a bit closer in hindsight than a 1-11 should be xD
    Don't. I was there until Mrs.Sandpit got bored around tea. Didn't expect it would end like that. The bet was to win a fiver, wouldn't have been happy if it had lost.

    Great comment from @kle4 that we've all been expecting a draw for 4 3/4 days and ended up disappointed to get it!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    Yes surely not OGH hoping to strike it lucky again with Rubio?
    Rubio seems as good a bet as any right now. I'll do a piece at some point as to why I think it's the GOP's year with the right candidate, and Rubio looks to me like the right candidate. Question is whether he can survive February in reasonable shape before March's MegaTuesdays.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    Yes surely not OGH hoping to strike it lucky again with Rubio?
    It's not that tricky to throw a hat-load of names around over a period of time (and even bet on them all) and then only trumpet the solitary winner as some triumph of vision when it comes in. There are half a dozen PBers regularly guilty of this.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    My guess is that, with Walker out and Bush failing to make headway, the main threats to Rubio (assuming the amateurs fade and Cruz remains a right-wing minority candidate) must now be Kasich and Christie - both very long outsiders, but probably worth adding to the book if you can get attractive odds.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    Oops: Sturgeon calls Dave "pig-headed".
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,732
    Tim_B said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The United States of America will soon have its first woman President.

    This list of ten things is just a load of fluff and stuffing and kerfuffle and waffle. It doesn't matter what the opinion polls say, or what happens in the caucuses or primaries or conventions. It doesn't matter who is selected by either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or the Green Party or the Trump Party.

    The only thing which matters is the Presidential Election itself, and when that happens in December 2016, the members of the Electoral College will vote unanimously for Roberta McCain.

    She's over 100 for John's sake!
    So she's got more experience then!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    Yes surely not OGH hoping to strike it lucky again with Rubio?
    Rubio seems as good a bet as any right now. I'll do a piece at some point as to why I think it's the GOP's year with the right candidate, and Rubio looks to me like the right candidate. Question is whether he can survive February in reasonable shape before March's MegaTuesdays.
    Rubio may be the best general election candidate but he needs to win Iowa really otherwise Trump's momentum could be unstoppable. He may end up the GOP's Andy Burnham
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Wales take the lead!
  • HYUFD said:

    Wales take the lead!

    Not for long.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Another American thread? - At this rate I may have to do some house work, or God forbid, the ironing...!

    Election wise the US is only a year away and unpredictable at the moment. In the UK politics is now a snoozefest with no election for five years and Corbyn v Cameron about as one sided as IDS v Blair. To be fair there have been a few Canada threads for their election on Monday too
    All said with tongue in cheek Mr HYUFD – This will be my 3rd POTUS election on PB and I appreciate how important they are for PB punters. – I heard someone once backed the future president at 50/1… although it’s probably just a rumour…
    Yes surely not OGH hoping to strike it lucky again with Rubio?
    It's not that tricky to throw a hat-load of names around over a period of time (and even bet on them all) and then only trumpet the solitary winner as some triumph of vision when it comes in. There are half a dozen PBers regularly guilty of this.
    Certainly if you have enough funds to bet and are ready to spread it around
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Well said from south of Watford, what a plank.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    Indeed though the GOP mood seems to be like Labour`s at the moment with ideology coming before all else and Rubio's pro immigration views could hurt him here. Hence Trump leads followed by Carson
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Jeb Bush says 'we were attacked and my brother kept us safe'? I'm not necessarily blaming the guy but 3,000 civilians dying isn't exactly being kept safe.

    On Rubio, wouldn't a Hispanic nominee that has championed amnesty might mean a Trump indy run is more likely?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    malcolmg said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Well said from south of Watford, what a plank.
    Thus presumably proving my point?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    HYUFD said:

    Wales take the lead!

    Not for long.
    True but still close for now
  • Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Winning elections.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Winning elections.
    True.

    Referendums not so much.
  • Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    You've not really worked out how this democracy lark works, have you?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wales take the lead!

    Not for long.
    True but still close for now
    Wales back in front at halftime with a drop goal
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    JEO said:

    Jeb Bush says 'we were attacked and my brother kept us safe'? I'm not necessarily blaming the guy but 3,000 civilians dying isn't exactly being kept safe.

    On Rubio, wouldn't a Hispanic nominee that has championed amnesty might mean a Trump indy run is more likely?

    Trump called Rubio a 'perfect little puppet' for donors so there is no love lost there
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    You've not really worked out how this democracy lark works, have you?
    Eh? I asked a simple question. Yet to receive anything substantive as an answer so far.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    I wonder whether the Economist will rue the day it described the SNP as a soft autocracy?

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21674723-soft-autocracy-nationalist-scotland-cawdors-shadow
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    What baffles me is how Sturgeon critiques the booers as parochial and inward-looking for wanting to leave the EU but fails to make the obvious connection when it applies to the SNP leaving the UK. The only conclusion has to be that her brand of nationalism is essentially anti-English, nothing more, nothing less.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    edited October 2015
    antifrank said:

    I wonder whether the Economist will rue the day it described the SNP as a soft autocracy?

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21674723-soft-autocracy-nationalist-scotland-cawdors-shadow

    As a One Nation Tory, it is the lavishing of glittering educational prizes on the Scottish middle classes, who can afford to pay - and would in the fairer society of England - whilst the poorer children and young adults lose out that is most objectionable. I don't think it will take many more years of the SNP controlling Holyrood for the population to realise this.
  • DavidL said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Winning elections.
    True.

    Referendums not so much.
    Referendum, singular.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    edited October 2015
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    You've not really worked out how this democracy lark works, have you?
    Eh? I asked a simple question. Yet to receive anything substantive as an answer so far.
    Maybe he asked the Scottish police force for some assistance. You may have a very long wait.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    edited October 2015
    DavidL said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    You've not really worked out how this democracy lark works, have you?
    Eh? I asked a simple question. Yet to receive anything substantive as an answer so far.
    Maybe he asked the Scottish police force for some assistance. You may have a very long wait.
    Hehe.

    David - is there a general realisation amongst Scottish voters that the SNP are good at winning elections but less than wonderful at producing substantive outcomes despite the increasing largesse (in terms of both monies and powers) dished upon Holyrood by London?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Great gains in the NHS, while saving tons of cash, so Scotland has a better service than in England for about 15% less money per capita.
    Fantastic unification of the Police, providing record low levels of crime.
    Amazing education improvements at all levels from pre-school to University.
    Wonderful delivery of infrastructure projects, multi-billion pound spends coming in on time and under budget (compare with Labours "late and four times the price").
    Phenomenal record on budgeting, providing satisfaction levels with services well beyond anywhere else in the UK despite a heavy fiscal squeeze.
    Terrific tax cuts to help everyone in society.
    Unparallelled support for equality both in equal marriage and promoting women into the workforce.
    Extraordinary employment figures leading to economic active population in Scotland being a full percentage point higher than in the rUK and through growing the workforce the Capacity for more employment is still higher than England despite the higher percentage already in work.
    Paedophile punishing laws coming which provide access to help for all children in Scotland with no buck passing.

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    felix said:

    What baffles me is how Sturgeon critiques the booers as parochial and inward-looking for wanting to leave the EU but fails to make the obvious connection when it applies to the SNP leaving the UK. The only conclusion has to be that her brand of nationalism is essentially anti-English, nothing more, nothing less.

    There is a huge difference between the Isolationism of the English parties and the encompassing desire for Self-Determination as part of the wider world that supporters of Dissolution want.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    Dair said:

    felix said:

    What baffles me is how Sturgeon critiques the booers as parochial and inward-looking for wanting to leave the EU but fails to make the obvious connection when it applies to the SNP leaving the UK. The only conclusion has to be that her brand of nationalism is essentially anti-English, nothing more, nothing less.

    There is a huge difference between the Isolationism of the English parties and the encompassing desire for Self-Determination as part of the wider world that supporters of Dissolution want.
    What a load of tosh. The only difference is the latter gives an opportunity to bite the hand that feeds Scotland, whilst the former will actually have a positive effect on the exchequer....
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Is Pravda alive and well in Scotland .. I heard all this bullshine when SLAB were in power..the place is still a bloody slum....just another tranche of second rate politicos draining the coffers of the Scots..
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    HYUFD said:

    Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty

    Paddy had Wales t 3/1 before the start of this match, which I quite happily took advantage of.

    They could be in for one hell of a tanking.

    Only disappointment is the Saffers aren';t doing the second half collapse they have had in every game so far so my 15-21pts Wales won't be a winner.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,574
    Dair said:

    felix said:

    What baffles me is how Sturgeon critiques the booers as parochial and inward-looking for wanting to leave the EU but fails to make the obvious connection when it applies to the SNP leaving the UK. The only conclusion has to be that her brand of nationalism is essentially anti-English, nothing more, nothing less.

    There is a huge difference between the Isolationism of the English parties and the encompassing desire for Self-Determination as part of the wider world that supporters of Dissolution want.
    The EU is not in that sense part of the wider world - it's part of mainland Europe. But having read your earlier fantasy about the achievements of the SNP in office I bow to reality - no point in engaging with your sense of reality.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    felix said:

    Dair said:

    felix said:

    What baffles me is how Sturgeon critiques the booers as parochial and inward-looking for wanting to leave the EU but fails to make the obvious connection when it applies to the SNP leaving the UK. The only conclusion has to be that her brand of nationalism is essentially anti-English, nothing more, nothing less.

    There is a huge difference between the Isolationism of the English parties and the encompassing desire for Self-Determination as part of the wider world that supporters of Dissolution want.
    The EU is not in that sense part of the wider world - it's part of mainland Europe. But having read your earlier fantasy about the achievements of the SNP in office I bow to reality - no point in engaging with your sense of reality.
    Indeed - and with pretty terrible external tariffs, too, designed to keep out the wider world.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586
    edited October 2015
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Great gains in the NHS, while saving tons of cash, so Scotland has a better service than in England for about 15% less money per capita.
    Fantastic unification of the Police, providing record low levels of crime.
    Amazing education improvements at all levels from pre-school to University.
    Wonderful delivery of infrastructure projects, multi-billion pound spends coming in on time and under budget (compare with Labours "late and four times the price").
    Phenomenal record on budgeting, providing satisfaction levels with services well beyond anywhere else in the UK despite a heavy fiscal squeeze.
    Terrific tax cuts to help everyone in society.
    Unparallelled support for equality both in equal marriage and promoting women into the workforce.
    Extraordinary employment figures leading to economic active population in Scotland being a full percentage point higher than in the rUK and through growing the workforce the Capacity for more employment is still higher than England despite the higher percentage already in work.
    Paedophile punishing laws coming which provide access to help for all children in Scotland with no buck passing.

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.
    Seems like you ran out of superlatives to describe how awesome these laws are when you got to the paedophile one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good evening, everyone.

    Bah. I backed Rubio last election.

    Was watching the rugby but decided to get some work done and/or buy some Christmas presents.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    JEO said:

    Jeb Bush says 'we were attacked and my brother kept us safe'? I'm not necessarily blaming the guy but 3,000 civilians dying isn't exactly being kept safe.

    On Rubio, wouldn't a Hispanic nominee that has championed amnesty might mean a Trump indy run is more likely?

    ??
    911 certainly happened but I suggest the remarks are aimed at the period after the bin Ladin attack, an attack which was mostly planned during the Clinton administration. This last point is really to draw attention to the fact that the Bush administration was not the catalyst for the attack.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,489
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Great gains in the NHS, while saving tons of cash, so Scotland has a better service than in England for about 15% less money per capita.
    Fantastic unification of the Police, providing record low levels of crime.
    Amazing education improvements at all levels from pre-school to University.
    Wonderful delivery of infrastructure projects, multi-billion pound spends coming in on time and under budget (compare with Labours "late and four times the price").
    Phenomenal record on budgeting, providing satisfaction levels with services well beyond anywhere else in the UK despite a heavy fiscal squeeze.
    Terrific tax cuts to help everyone in society.
    Unparallelled support for equality both in equal marriage and promoting women into the workforce.
    Extraordinary employment figures leading to economic active population in Scotland being a full percentage point higher than in the rUK and through growing the workforce the Capacity for more employment is still higher than England despite the higher percentage already in work.
    Paedophile punishing laws coming which provide access to help for all children in Scotland with no buck passing.

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.
    No doubt the SNP administration pass golden turds as well.
  • Last score wins at the rugby.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Why are all those refugees going up to Germany..Dairs Scotland sounds a much better bet..or have most of them been given that sort of bullshine for years now....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    Mortimer said:

    antifrank said:

    I wonder whether the Economist will rue the day it described the SNP as a soft autocracy?

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21674723-soft-autocracy-nationalist-scotland-cawdors-shadow

    As a One Nation Tory, it is the lavishing of glittering educational prizes on the Scottish middle classes, who can afford to pay - and would in the fairer society of England - whilst the poorer children and young adults lose out that is most objectionable. I don't think it will take many more years of the SNP controlling Holyrood for the population to realise this.
    What a space cadet, funny but not Ha Ha
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    malcolmg said:

    Mortimer said:

    antifrank said:

    I wonder whether the Economist will rue the day it described the SNP as a soft autocracy?

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21674723-soft-autocracy-nationalist-scotland-cawdors-shadow

    As a One Nation Tory, it is the lavishing of glittering educational prizes on the Scottish middle classes, who can afford to pay - and would in the fairer society of England - whilst the poorer children and young adults lose out that is most objectionable. I don't think it will take many more years of the SNP controlling Holyrood for the population to realise this.
    What a space cadet, funny but not Ha Ha
    I'm glad you find the falling literacy rates and discouraging of the poor from escaping their backgrounds a laughing matter. I don't.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
    I imagine (although I do take your point) that there is no way that Corbyn would have got the necessary nominations just say 12 months out from an election. This is why Corbyn really wants to watch out what people put in his tea.
    As it is the Corbynite wing really need to make the deselection policy to work before the 2020 election to be able to rod themselves of right wing and centrist labour MPs to ensure a suitable candidate to nominated next.
    Provided Corbyn stays well he can of course remain as leader as long has he wants. By what mechanism can he be replaced as long has the membership want him there?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
    I imagine (although I do take your point) that there is no way that Corbyn would have got the necessary nominations just say 12 months out from an election. This is why Corbyn really wants to watch out what people put in his tea.
    As it is the Corbynite wing really need to make the deselection policy to work before the 2020 election to be able to rod themselves of right wing and centrist labour MPs to ensure a suitable candidate to nominated next.
    Provided Corbyn stays well he can of course remain as leader as long has he wants. By what mechanism can he be replaced as long has the membership want him there?
    By a challenger nominated by MPs, probably after a bad by-election coming behind UKIP
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty

    Paddy had Wales t 3/1 before the start of this match, which I quite happily took advantage of.

    They could be in for one hell of a tanking.

    Only disappointment is the Saffers aren';t doing the second half collapse they have had in every game so far so my 15-21pts Wales won't be a winner.
    Looks like you have a chance of picking the winner though but still very tight
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    My bet currently looking as cunning as slapping an alligator in the face with one's todger.

    On the other hand, I'd rather a three match bet lose immediately than later on.
  • Dair said:

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.

    If you think that Corbyn's Labour is the same thing as Cameron's Conservatives (who cares about the Liberals) then you've been drinking your own Kool Aid for too long.
  • SAF Try! :D
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    My bet currently looking as cunning as slapping an alligator in the face with one's todger.

    On the other hand, I'd rather a three match bet lose immediately than later on.

    S Africa try, so you are still alive for now
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,586

    Dair said:

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.

    If you think that Corbyn's Labour is the same thing as Cameron's Conservatives (who cares about the Liberals) then you've been drinking your own Kool Aid for too long.
    All that matters is independence. Lab and Tory oppose, so they are the same :p
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
    I imagine (although I do take your point) that there is no way that Corbyn would have got the necessary nominations just say 12 months out from an election. This is why Corbyn really wants to watch out what people put in his tea.
    As it is the Corbynite wing really need to make the deselection policy to work before the 2020 election to be able to rod themselves of right wing and centrist labour MPs to ensure a suitable candidate to nominated next.
    Provided Corbyn stays well he can of course remain as leader as long has he wants. By what mechanism can he be replaced as long has the membership want him there?
    By a challenger nominated by MPs, probably after a bad by-election coming behind UKIP
    Isn't the argument that under those circumstances Corbyn still gets to stand in opposition without needing nominations? The voting rules still stand. Corbynite are not bothered about the general election result, they need to get to the point where they can deselect MPs to get a future corbynite leadership candidate and get a corbynite majority in what is left of the PLP.
    I would certainly be interested to learn of alternative corbynite strategies.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,589
    What a game. What a World Cup.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    SeanT said:

    What a game. What a World Cup.

    Always gets more exciting once the dross is knocked out in the group phase.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,143
    malcolmg said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Well said from south of Watford, what a plank.
    MAlky, you do know Cillit bang is a cleaning product, not a cocktail don't you?
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    SeanT said:

    What a game. What a World Cup.

    Penalty roulette???
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,589
    Dair said:

    SeanT said:

    What a game. What a World Cup.

    Always gets more exciting once the dross is knocked out in the group phase.
    You won't troll me here. England were piss poor and deserved to exit. We can be proud that we are hosting the best World Cup ever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited October 2015

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
    I imagine (although I do take your point) that there is no way that Corbyn would have got the necessary nominations just say 12 months out from an election. This is why Corbyn really wants to watch out what people put in his tea.e?
    By a challenger nominated by MPs, probably after a bad by-election coming behind UKIP
    Isn't the argument that under those circumstances Corbyn still gets to stand in opposition without needing nominations? The voting rules still stand. Corbynite are not bothered about the general election result, they need to get to the point where they can deselect MPs to get a future corbynite leadership candidate and get a corbynite majority in what is left of the PLP.
    I would certainly be interested to learn of alternative corbynite strategies.
    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Well played Wales but in the end not well enough and S Africa go through, just
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    SeanT said:

    Dair said:

    SeanT said:

    What a game. What a World Cup.

    Always gets more exciting once the dross is knocked out in the group phase.
    You won't troll me here. England were piss poor and deserved to exit. We can be proud that we are hosting the best World Cup ever.
    Wales used up all their luck against England. England lost on the turnover of a vague late tackle following a poor Welsh kick.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,920
    Twitter
    Vincent Moss ‏@vincentmoss 4 mins4 minutes ago
    We have a @TheSundayMirror and Indy on Sunday ComRes poll out later tonight.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,453
    edited October 2015
    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.

    I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    Sean_F said:

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    This is the linee that should have the opposition quaking.

    Other than whining, what have the SNP excelled at during their time in government?
    Great gains in the NHS, while saving tons of cash, so Scotland has a better service than in England for about 15% less money per capita.
    Fantastic unification of the Police, providing record low levels of crime.
    Amazing education improvements at all levels from pre-school to University.
    Wonderful delivery of infrastructure projects, multi-billion pound spends coming in on time and under budget (compare with Labours "late and four times the price").
    Phenomenal record on budgeting, providing satisfaction levels with services well beyond anywhere else in the UK despite a heavy fiscal squeeze.
    Terrific tax cuts to help everyone in society.
    Unparallelled support for equality both in equal marriage and promoting women into the workforce.
    Extraordinary employment figures leading to economic active population in Scotland being a full percentage point higher than in the rUK and through growing the workforce the Capacity for more employment is still higher than England despite the higher percentage already in work.
    Paedophile punishing laws coming which provide access to help for all children in Scotland with no buck passing.

    There's lots more, it's much like the Monty Python routine about the Romans where the various versions of the Popular Front are called Liberals and Tories and SLABbers while they're all really the same.
    No doubt the SNP administration pass golden turds as well.
    I'm curious. "Terrific tax cuts to help everyone in society." - what were these?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited October 2015

    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
    It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot, at least that is how it could be interpreted by Mandelson and co
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited October 2015
    Dair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wales extend their lead over S Africa to 4 points after a penalty

    Paddy had Wales t 3/1 before the start of this match, which I quite happily took advantage of.

    They could be in for one hell of a tanking.

    Only disappointment is the Saffers aren';t doing the second half collapse they have had in every game so far so my 15-21pts Wales won't be a winner.
    Nice early cheer!

    Complaining that the winning margin bet isn't going to cop & the team doesn't even win... That's some going
  • HYUFD said:

    Isn't the argument that under those circumstances Corbyn still gets to stand in opposition without needing nominations? The voting rules still stand. Corbynite are not bothered about the general election result, they need to get to the point where they can deselect MPs to get a future corbynite leadership candidate and get a corbynite majority in what is left of the PLP.
    I would certainly be interested to learn of alternative corbynite strategies.

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
    The rules require 20% for challengers to get on the ballot but don't say that the leader is a challenger, as he isn't. It doesn't matter what Lord Mandelson thinks, who would actually make a ruling on this if it was to be necessary? I would imagine the NEC and Corbynites now form a majority of the NEC already so I would think if a Blairite got 20% and Corbyn wanted to stay on the NEC could just rule he is automatically on the ballot.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.

    I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
    I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.

    No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HYUFD said:

    Well played Wales but in the end not well enough and S Africa go through, just

    Brave Wales but the tackles score tells the whole story. When you have to make so many tackles, it is quite clear who were always defending. Defending well, though.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,453
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.
    It says challengers need nominations and then sets out the number of nominations needed to be a candidate. If that challenger then forces a leadership contest it does not say the leader does not also then need to get 20% of MPs to get on the ballot
    Do you have the text for that rule - that's not the version I read which says:

    "nominations may be sought by potential challengers"

    nothing about the existing leader then needing to be renominated.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Surbiton, Australia had incredible defence against Wales in the group stage. I think the Aussies may win this tournament.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    SeanT said:

    Dair said:

    SeanT said:

    What a game. What a World Cup.

    Always gets more exciting once the dross is knocked out in the group phase.
    You won't troll me here. England were piss poor and deserved to exit. We can be proud that we are hosting the best World Cup ever.
    It's not trolling, it's a joke that I would hope most English people can laugh at,

    I speak as someone with a long experience of sporting failure and have long accepted that it is better to laugh at the situation than consider anyone cracking jokes as trolling.

    Even St Nic made a joke about Euro 2016 in her opening speech to the SNP conference - June 2016, perfect time for the Second Referendum while England, Wales and Norn Irn are otherwise distracted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited October 2015
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.

    I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
    I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.

    No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
    I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to force a leadership ballot, so if a challenger forced a ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would also be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2015
    On topic:

    It's about time that the betting markets realize that Jeb Bush is not the favourite in the race, he's usually polling 5th place or lower, while Rubio is one place ahead of him.

    But Rubio equally has very low chances to get the nomination, simply being more aggressive than McCain on foreign affairs doesn't get you enough votes especially when Rubio loves immigration, which is anathema to republican voters.

    Look at Trump, look at Carson, everytime they berate immigrants or muslims they rise in the polls, because that's what the voters want.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Rubio strikes me as a very strong candidate for the republicans. Being senator of a key swing state like Florida does not go amiss either.
    It now has 29 electoral votes (+2) and is nearly always on the winning side.

    It really depends on whether the GOP is serious about winning doesn't it?

    It has always struck me as unusual the way the parties select their candidate very much in public immediately before the Presidential race. They have to move overnight from trying to appeal to the base of their own party, to adopting a much more centrist and consolidatory position on most of the same issues, in order to appeal to the wider public.

    Would it not benefit one party to have chosen their candidate months ago and be hammering their single position against a divided opposing party?

    To put in a British context, would Labour have chosen Corbyn a year before a certain general election?
    Explaining why Labour chose Corbyn at any time is completely beyond me. Complete idiocy.

    The repositioning by the candidates seems to be more of a problem for the GOP than the Democrats, possibly reflecting which party is nearer the centre point of American views. It did Romney no favours last time out.
    I imagine (although I do take your point) that there is no way that Corbyn would have got the necessary nominations just say 12 months out from an election. This is why Corbyn really wants to watch out what people put in his tea.e?
    By a challenger nominated by MPs, probably after a bad by-election coming behind UKIP
    Isn't the argument that under those circumstances Corbyn still gets to stand in opposition without needing nominations? The voting rules still stand. Corbynite are not bothered about the general election result, they need to get to the point where they can deselect MPs to get a future corbynite leadership candidate and get a corbynite majority in what is left of the PLP.
    I would certainly be interested to learn of alternative corbynite strategies.
    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In
    The rules are decided by the NEC.

    Who controls that again?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,453
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The rules require 20% of MPs to nominate a challenger but do not do not preclude the leader also being required to get that level of nominees too to get on the ballot and Labour officials have suggested that would be the case as Peter Mandelson certainly would too. If however Corbyn stays until 2020 and is replaced by another Corbynista then the Labour Party will inevitably split, probably with New Labour types forming an SDP 2 with the LDs. Mind you the Tories too could even split post EU ref with anti EU types going to UKIP if a narrow In

    AFAIK it doesn't say that.

    When I read the rules it said potential challengers (which Corbyn would not be, as existing leader) need nominations.

    I.e. Corbyn goes back on automatically.
    I had this conversation with HYUFD a few days ago, I even copy pasted the actual rules from the Labour rule book itself, but HYUFD was still convinced that somehow Corbyn can be blocked.

    No point continuing the conversation with him on that topic.
    I am sorry but the rules quite clearly state you need 20% of MPs to get on a ballot, so if a challenger got on the ballot with 20% or more of MPs he would be a candidate, if Corbyn could not also then get 20% of MPs that challenger could then be said to have been elected unopposed
    That's what you want the rules to read, not what they actually say.
Sign In or Register to comment.