Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What 2018 could have in store for Trump (and who might he face

2»

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
    Yes - reminiscent in some ways of Clinton's famous promise to put all coal miners out of work.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Metatron said:

    Bernie Sanders will probably be too old to stand .As regards Gillibrand there may be a reaction to the extremity of the me-too positioning among many women as well as men who are now confused as what is legitimate flirting.
    Would stay clear of next Democratic Nominee markets until Michele Obama and Zuckerberg`s intentions are clear.Could see either standing if Trump was to stand again and they thought they were the most likely to beat him.If the Warrens and Bidens were that good how come they did not try to be the Democratic nominee in 2016?

    Sanders is lucky to run and if he runs he likely gets it. Hillary crowded out the field for others beyond him in 2016
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Not really. The Tories did actually reach out to new supporters, if losing some of their previous ones.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes but Ford lost after 8 years of his party in control of the White House and George HW Bush lost after 12 years of his party in the White House. Only Jimmy Carter lost after his party had controlled the White House for just 4 years. Though of course Carter lost to Reagan who had narrowly lost the 1976 Republican nomination to Ford. Sanders will be hoping that after he narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic nomination, he is Reagan to Hillary's Ford and Trump's Carter.

    Indeed but Trump is the biggest "outsider" (not in the betting sense) to become President since Carter who utilised the new "primary" process to prevail over more established Democratic figures.

    Trump won because he was able to get voters other Republicans would probably have not reached and this enabled him to win the big ticket states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania and hold Florida. Whether another Republican would have managed it is debatable - I think that's doubtful a more establishment GOP candidate would have.

    These voters have stayed loyal to Trump so far but is their loyalty only to Trump or to the GOP in general ? Can the GOP rely on "Trump Democrats" or "Trump Independents" if there is no Trump on the ticket - possibly with Pence, doubtful with anyone else.

    Recent history also tells us incumbency is no bar to a primary challenge - will a GOP candidate challenge Trump if the 2018 midterms are very bad ?


    I think 'Trump Democrats' were very much voting for his populist, anti globalisation agenda and the best Democrat to win them back is Bernie Sanders.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
    Yes - reminiscent in some ways of Clinton's famous promise to put all coal miners out of work.
    But the coal miners were not her base as I understand it, was my point, she was saying that sort of thing to please her base, which was not large enough. May's dementia tax policy was never going to please her base of the elderly, she just mistakenly thought they were enough on board that it would not matter. That mistake that the base was large enough is reminiscent, but May did at least do things other than preach to her base. Indeed, that was one of the signs of her overconfidence, it is claimed - all that talk of policies parking tanks on labour's lawn, that is doing things the base won't like, because of trying to reach the previously unreachable. Whereas I had thought Clinton simply ignored such people.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Not really. The Tories did actually reach out to new supporters, if losing some of their previous ones.
    So did Clinton, but they were new supporters on her own terms. Campaigning in Arizona and North Carolina, but not the parts where the swing voters lived. Similarly May campaigning in all the northern working class seats and not thinking about the suburban middle class areas that were swinging to Corbyn

    Superficial? Maybe. But definitely present.
  • Ah. The Radetzky March.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited January 2018
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
    Yes - reminiscent in some ways of Clinton's famous promise to put all coal miners out of work.
    But the coal miners were not her base as I understand it, was my point, she was saying that sort of thing to please her base, which was not large enough. May's dementia tax policy was never going to please her base of the elderly, she just mistakenly thought they were enough on board that it would not matter. That mistake that the base was large enough is reminiscent, but May did at least do things other than preach to her base. Indeed, that was one of the signs of her overconfidence, it is claimed - all that talk of policies parking tanks on labour's lawn, that is doing things the base won't like, because of trying to reach the previously unreachable. Whereas I had thought Clinton simply ignored such people.
    Depends on what you mean by 'base.' Unionised industrial workers are traditionally Democrats. But Clinton herself does seem, and this is where your point has force, to have assumed either they would vote for her reflexively or that her real base was the newer middle-class urban left on the west coast and in New England who were interested in environmentalism, LBGT issues, foreign affairs etc and that it was worth ditching the old base to appeal to them.

    Either way it was a disastrous error, but my money would be on the former.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
    Yes - reminiscent in some ways of Clinton's famous promise to put all coal miners out of work.
    But the coal miners were not her base as I understand it, was my point, she was saying that sort of thing to please her base, which was not large enough. May's dementia tax policy was never going to please her base of the elderly, she just mistakenly thought they were enough on board that it would not matter. That mistake that the base was large enough is reminiscent, but May did at least do things other than preach to her base. Indeed, that was one of the signs of her overconfidence, it is claimed - all that talk of policies parking tanks on labour's lawn, that is doing things the base won't like, because of trying to reach the previously unreachable. Whereas I had thought Clinton simply ignored such people.
    Depends on what you mean by 'base.' Unionised industrial workers are traditionally Democrats. But Clinton herself does seem, and this is where your point has force, to have assumed either they would vote for her reflexively or that her real base was the newer middle-class urban left on the west coast and in New England who were interested in environmentalism, LBGT issues, foreign affairs etc.
    Her base and the traditional democratic base do seem to have diverged considerably, or at least had far different priorities, on the face of it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    A belated Happy New Year to one and all.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    The election's very close, and will be decided by the bloc that gets most voes when Sweden Democrats are ignored (there is a 4% threshold so the Christian Democrats are borderline). Note that the (Conservative) Moderates dislike the Sweden Democrats so much that they yielded power rather than accept their support. To an even greater extent than in Germany, the anti-immigration party has (more) significant support but is seen as (more) horrid by all the others.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
    Yes - reminiscent in some ways of Clinton's famous promise to put all coal miners out of work.
    But the coal miners were not her base as I understand it, was my point, she was saying that sort of thing to please her base, which was not large enough. May's dementia tax policy was never going to please her base of the elderly, she just mistakenly thought they were enough on board that it would not matter. That mistake that the base was large enough is reminiscent, but May did at least do things other than preach to her base. Indeed, that was one of the signs of her overconfidence, it is claimed - all that talk of policies parking tanks on labour's lawn, that is doing things the base won't like, because of trying to reach the previously unreachable. Whereas I had thought Clinton simply ignored such people.
    Depends on what you mean by 'base.' Unionised industrial workers are traditionally Democrats. But Clinton herself does seem, and this is where your point has force, to have assumed either they would vote for her reflexively or that her real base was the newer middle-class urban left on the west coast and in New England who were interested in environmentalism, LBGT issues, foreign affairs etc.
    Her base and the traditional democratic base do seem to have diverged considerably, or at least had far different priorities, on the face of it.
    The usual problem for left of centre parties - trying to keep both factions on board - the right-on latte-sippers and the working class. Different priorities, different values, but in a FPTP system, only one party to represent them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Not really. The Tories did actually reach out to new supporters, if losing some of their previous ones.
    So did Clinton, but they were new supporters on her own terms. Campaigning in Arizona and North Carolina, but not the parts where the swing voters lived. Similarly May campaigning in all the northern working class seats and not thinking about the suburban middle class areas that were swinging to Corbyn

    Superficial? Maybe. But definitely present.
    Clinton did better in Texas and Arizona in 2016 than Obama did in 2012 but failed to win either while also losing the rustbelt. May also did better than Cameron in northern working class seats but lost a number of more middle class marginal seats because of the dementia tax
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    The election's very close, and will be decided by the bloc that gets most voes when Sweden Democrats are ignored (there is a 4% threshold so the Christian Democrats are borderline). Note that the (Conservative) Moderates dislike the Sweden Democrats so much that they yielded power rather than accept their support. To an even greater extent than in Germany, the anti-immigration party has (more) significant support but is seen as (more) horrid by all the others.
    If there is a populist party that wins power in Europe this year it will be Five Star in Italy. The Swedish Democrats as you say will be up but like the AfD the main centre right party will not deal with them
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?

    Yes - the Building Research Establishment ran some trials around 10 years ago and the conclusion was that fire will spread to cars in adjacent parking bays - greater separation distances prevent spread. The car park last night appears to have been close to capacity - hence the resulting damage.
    Yet another example of why we should have sprinklers in all large capacity public buildings?
    Puzzlingly, the media reported that the people who lost their cars were 'stranded'. Don't things called 'trains' operate?

    Happy New Year, everyone. Given that they seem better (bettor?!) for me than other events, may there be a crisis and a snap general election ...
    No, trains don't operate on lots of routes on New Year's Eve evening. Anyway, not a HNY for the car insurance companies.
    I'd thought after the two-day Xmas break they stopped only on New Year's day. (A Bank Holiday gives them more excuse not to operate.)

    Surely insurers are used to paying £15k or so after a write-off? They paid out £1bn after the Selby train crash.

    I doubt the value of the claim would pay for sprinklers. If it's a typical car I think insurers would regard it as a valid claim; their insured just had the bad luck of parking next to a dodgy car.

    Of course, if it turned out to be an electric car whose battery self-destructed, that might change things. I've no idea.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    A happy new year to all PBers

  • I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    The election's very close, and will be decided by the bloc that gets most voes when Sweden Democrats are ignored (there is a 4% threshold so the Christian Democrats are borderline). Note that the (Conservative) Moderates dislike the Sweden Democrats so much that they yielded power rather than accept their support. To an even greater extent than in Germany, the anti-immigration party has (more) significant support but is seen as (more) horrid by all the others.
    If there is a populist party that wins power in Europe this year it will be Five Star in Italy. The Swedish Democrats as you say will be up but like the AfD the main centre right party will not deal with them
    I know they didn't go top, but aren't we all supposed to be getting an attack of the vapours over the coalition partners of the Austrian Chancellor?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited January 2018

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited January 2018

    Surely insurers are used to paying £15k or so after a write-off? They paid out £1bn after the Selby train crash.

    What car do you own?!!!

    They offered me £700 for my car, after almost halving its value (£1800, which they reduced to £1080) increasing the cost of a repair by 30% (£1500, which they quoted as £2000 minimum) so that it could be written off.

    I told them to shove it and got it repaired myself, which still left me approximately £3000 better off than taking their offer.

    Edit - also I wasn't thinking just of insurance. Suppose somebody had been in one of the cars? Not to mention the other issues caused by highly toxic smoke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    The election's very close, and will be decided by the bloc that gets most voes when Sweden Democrats are ignored (there is a 4% threshold so the Christian Democrats are borderline). Note that the (Conservative) Moderates dislike the Sweden Democrats so much that they yielded power rather than accept their support. To an even greater extent than in Germany, the anti-immigration party has (more) significant support but is seen as (more) horrid by all the others.
    If there is a populist party that wins power in Europe this year it will be Five Star in Italy. The Swedish Democrats as you say will be up but like the AfD the main centre right party will not deal with them
    I know they didn't go top, but aren't we all supposed to be getting an attack of the vapours over the coalition partners of the Austrian Chancellor?
    Austria is the only nation in Europe where a centre right party will deal with a far right party.

    Five Star are not really far right but mildly Eurosceptic and anti austerity.
  • I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

  • HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows
    Call me Mr Suspicious Field Marshall, but do I get the feeling you're not a fan?
  • I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows

    Yep - he is preening narcissist. The people I find intriguing are those who believe he is a principled, patriotic, God-fearing Christian.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    ydoethur said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows
    Call me Mr Suspicious Field Marshall, but do I get the feeling you're not a fan?
    actually if in the states I would have voted for him, but only because the altervative ( Hilary ) was even worse

    as a president he's just a showbiz man enjoying a world stage

    he drives my Mrs nuts so on that level he has at least comedy value as I keep telling her he chucks out click bait for idiots and she cant pick it up fast enough

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows

    Yep - he is preening narcissist. The people I find intriguing are those who believe he is a principled, patriotic, God-fearing Christian.


    people thought it of JFK , it's just the spin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    Even then it is the coastal states who are likely to benefit most, so ironically Trump could do better in the popular vote next time but lose the Electoral College if the rustbelt is still not booming
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    ydoethur said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows
    Call me Mr Suspicious Field Marshall, but do I get the feeling you're not a fan?
    actually if in the states I would have voted for him, but only because the altervative ( Hilary ) was even worse

    as a president he's just a showbiz man enjoying a world stage

    he drives my Mrs nuts so on that level he has at least comedy value as I keep telling her he chucks out click bait for idiots and she cant pick it up fast enough

    Glad to see that you are every bit as tactful at home as you are on here!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Whatever the long term consequences are in terms of deficit and Federal spending there is little doubt that the tax cut that Trump has forced through will keep America growing quite well in the short term. If he can combine that with a deal with the megacorps by which several hundred billion are brought on shore, lightly taxed and then invested in the US then he will have a record to boast of economically, not least in the rust bucket.

    He is bizarre, slightly mad, unpredictable, obnoxious, misogynist and less than honest but I think he might be favourite for re-election as things stand.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
    I think, to misquote Bonar Law, is it necessary for it not only not to be exploitative but to be seen not to be exploitative.

    When I was in Israel, I was with a large number of Hilary supporters. I commented that while I thought Trump was crazy I wasn't mad keen on the Clintons, which didn't make me popular. When asked why, I asked how they would feel if I had seduced a 22-year-old NQT in my department, who was under my professional care and direct management (I carefully didn't use the example of a 19-year-old student, because obviously different rules apply there anyway) even if she was perfectly willing. I suggested that they would feel uncomfortable sitting at a table with me.

    There was a long silence and then muttered agreement. I was 33 at the time and in a far less junior position vis a vis my hypothetical girlfriend than Clinton was. But it would still, in my judgement, have been wrong. So was Clinton, although the real issue of course was that he lied about it.
    I think you make a very fair point - and I don't think it's asking much of the POTUS to resist getting involved in such things. But I think it's interesting how things have changed. I reckon twenty years ago the do gooders would have been more concerned with liberalism and allowing people to do what they want. Now they are looking for wrong doing in every relationship.
    Clinton's behaviour was wrong, but I'm not convinced it was sufficiently bad to merit resignation.
    Certainly the sexual behaviour of Clinton was far less reprehensible than that of Kennedy, who not only used his office to seduce teenage girls but forced at least one of them to perform a sex act on one of his aides while he watched. But I don't think it was the sex so much as the dishonesty that nearly did for Clinton. It is ironic to reflect that today it would indeed have been his actions that were the bigger story and probably would have forced his resignation.
    John and Edward Kennedy really ought to have gone to prison.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    ydoethur said:

    Surely insurers are used to paying £15k or so after a write-off? They paid out £1bn after the Selby train crash.

    What car do you own?!!!

    They offered me £700 for my car, after almost halving its value (£1800, which they reduced to £1080) increasing the cost of a repair by 30% (£1500, which they quoted as £2000 minimum) so that it could be written off.

    I told them to shove it and got it repaired myself, which still left me approximately £3000 better off than taking their offer.

    Edit - also I wasn't thinking just of insurance. Suppose somebody had been in one of the cars? Not to mention the other issues caused by highly toxic smoke.
    Well I haven't been in an accident since 1992. The seem to have been mean with you but maybe this is typical now.

    I was naively assuming that people with comprehensive policies were offered replacement cost and I was going on what cars other people seem to own, i.e. mostly much newer and posher than mine, e.g. a dealer near me is selling new Golfs at >£30k, https://www.southherefordgarages.co.uk/new-volkswagen/golf/gti-performance/

    I only have 3rd. party insurance (Saga). If I had an accident that I'd caused and the car was totally written-off, I'd buy another 2nd hand car for £2k. (I've never bought a new car.)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows

    Yep - he is preening narcissist. The people I find intriguing are those who believe he is a principled, patriotic, God-fearing Christian.

    Are there such people?

  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows

    Yep - he is preening narcissist. The people I find intriguing are those who believe he is a principled, patriotic, God-fearing Christian.

    You certainly bowled me out with your Swann reposte.......I was particularly hasty to judge Swann on his attack on poor Moen.

    There was a report on the World Service.....apparently a large element of the evangelical brigade believe that that the return to Jerusalem as the capital for the the hebrews is a precondition for the armageddon and the 2nd return of Christ...

  • Just for our EULoons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enQtTD-vt9w

    It won't get any better. :)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    Sean_F said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    there seemed to be no outcry when black voters sat a home for whitey Hilary

    however Trump seems to have gone out of his way to remotivate the sit at homes by sheer crassness

    Yep - by keeping his base onside Trump has galvanised disaffected Democrats.

    idiotic politics of course, but then Im never sure that Trump cares a toss about the politics

    he's a narcissicst, a digital PT Barnum, Alistair Meeks with hair

    he just loves the attention and doesnt really care what follows

    Yep - he is preening narcissist. The people I find intriguing are those who believe he is a principled, patriotic, God-fearing Christian.

    Are there such people?

    yep...the ones who are avid followers of the Book of Revelations...

    Ian Paisley thought that Pope John Paul 11 was the antichrist.....religion does funny things to your sense of judgement as ISIS kind of proves....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Just for our EULoons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enQtTD-vt9w

    It won't get any better. :)

    That's a bit random....I noticed Mirror in the Bathroom was played on Jools last night poor calibre affair to be honest....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    ydoethur said:

    Surely insurers are used to paying £15k or so after a write-off? They paid out £1bn after the Selby train crash.

    What car do you own?!!!

    They offered me £700 for my car, after almost halving its value (£1800, which they reduced to £1080) increasing the cost of a repair by 30% (£1500, which they quoted as £2000 minimum) so that it could be written off.

    I told them to shove it and got it repaired myself, which still left me approximately £3000 better off than taking their offer.

    Edit - also I wasn't thinking just of insurance. Suppose somebody had been in one of the cars? Not to mention the other issues caused by highly toxic smoke.
    Well I haven't been in an accident since 1992. The seem to have been mean with you but maybe this is typical now.

    I was naively assuming that people with comprehensive policies were offered replacement cost and I was going on what cars other people seem to own, i.e. mostly much newer and posher than mine, e.g. a dealer near me is selling new Golfs at >£30k, https://www.southherefordgarages.co.uk/new-volkswagen/golf/gti-performance/

    I only have 3rd. party insurance (Saga). If I had an accident that I'd caused and the car was totally written-off, I'd buy another 2nd hand car for £2k. (I've never bought a new car.)
    A friend of mine was hit by an uninsured driver and his new (6 months old) BMW required a new rear bumper.

    Unbelievably his insurers at first tried to persuade him it was a write off.

    When even they finally realised it wasn't £25,000 worth of work they tried to get it done on the cheap by a bloke in a van.

    They only stopped and got it done properly when BMW themselves threatened legal action (because it would have invalidated my friend's warranty).

    If they're having a miserable new year serves them bloody well right. They're a bunch of third rate incompetent lazy crooks (no offence intended to third rate incompetent lazy crooks).

    Your way out sounds sensible - but bizarrely it is more expensive for me to buy 3PFT than to buy fully comp.

    It is only recently that I have begun to fully appreciate there may be reasons why we have so many uninsured drivers on our roads.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    @seanfear.....I don't know if you remember our conversation about Graham Brady a few years ago whom I remember well from school...but he has finally morphed from a modest, pasty, gap toothed, particularly shy scroat from Timperley (of Frank Sidebottom fame), Manchester to a fully blown, plump, pompous, bloated Tory squire in the shires with a remodelled set of gnashers and a permatan to boot....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2018
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.
    If the Democrats want to win the Mid West they need to pick the bluecollar Sanders or Biden not another New York or California coastal elitist like Hillary
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    ydoethur said:

    Surely insurers are used to paying £15k or so after a write-off? They paid out £1bn after the Selby train crash.

    What car do you own?!!!

    They offered me £700 for my car, after almost halving its value (£1800, which they reduced to £1080) increasing the cost of a repair by 30% (£1500, which they quoted as £2000 minimum) so that it could be written off.

    I told them to shove it and got it repaired myself, which still left me approximately £3000 better off than taking their offer.

    Edit - also I wasn't thinking just of insurance. Suppose somebody had been in one of the cars? Not to mention the other issues caused by highly toxic smoke.
    Well I haven't been in an accident since 1992. The seem to have been mean with you but maybe this is typical now.

    I was naively assuming that people with comprehensive policies were offered replacement cost and I was going on what cars other people seem to own, i.e. mostly much newer and posher than mine, e.g. a dealer near me is selling new Golfs at >£30k, https://www.southherefordgarages.co.uk/new-volkswagen/golf/gti-performance/

    I only have 3rd. party insurance (Saga). If I had an accident that I'd caused and the car was totally written-off, I'd buy another 2nd hand car for £2k. (I've never bought a new car.)
    3rd party is, oddly, often more expensive than comp, and saga isn't usually cheap for anything - might be worth looking at alternatives.
  • DavidL said:

    "The race for the House might be going the Democrat’s way but the race for the Senate is much less certain. Whereas the whole House is up for re-election every two years, only a third of the Senate is up each cycle and the 2018 map is not kind for Democrats. At the time of writing, they need a net gain of two seats to win back control of the Senate,"

    Betfair exchange punters should note that the two independents who currently caucus with the Democrats are not included, i.e. four gains are needed. I do believe both independents are restanding, although I will check at some point.

    Basically for Betfair, the Dems need to change the game by having more Republicans stand down before the election.

    Thanks for that. I was tempted to vote on the Democrats taking both the House and the Senate because I had assumed they only needed 2 and have such a large generic lead along with a base that Trump motivates in a big way. But 4 is a very big ask unless there are some incumbents standing down.
    Four gains takes the Dems to unseating Ted Cruz.
  • tyson said:

    Just for our EULoons:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enQtTD-vt9w

    It won't get any better. :)

    That's a bit random....I noticed Mirror in the Bathroom was played on Jools last night poor calibre affair to be honest....
    Cheers Tyson: I thought that was rather good.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXFTSQw_2ZE

    Then I will be hitting fifty soon: Thank God I am a Sarf-Luhndahnah! Not sure why Deptford-boy Jools was doing this in Jockland but hope this year will be the New-X boy's Academy-Award at last!*

    * I could of made £50-day as an extra within 'The Dew-Drop Inn' (with free Guinness on tap). Sadly I had a proper job so you won't see me in 'Nil-By-Mouth'. ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Toms said:
    It does remind me however of the historian who commented that Watergate showed how robust the checks on the President's powers are.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    [deleted].

    [deleted].
    Well I haven't been in an accident since 1992. They seem to have been mean with you but maybe this is typical now.

    I was naively assuming that people with comprehensive policies were offered replacement cost and I was going on what cars other people seem to own, i.e. mostly much newer and posher than mine, e.g. a dealer near me is selling new Golfs at >£30k, https://www.southherefordgarages.co.uk/new-volkswagen/golf/gti-performance/

    I only have 3rd. party insurance (Saga). If I had an accident that I'd caused and the car was totally written-off, I'd buy another 2nd hand car for £2k. (I've never bought a new car.)
    A friend of mine was hit by an uninsured driver and his new (6 months old) BMW required a new rear bumper.

    Unbelievably his insurers at first tried to persuade him it was a write off.

    When even they finally realised it wasn't £25,000 worth of work they tried to get it done on the cheap by a bloke in a van.

    They only stopped and got it done properly when BMW themselves threatened legal action (because it would have invalidated my friend's warranty).

    If they're having a miserable new year serves them bloody well right. They're a bunch of third rate incompetent lazy crooks (no offence intended to third rate incompetent lazy crooks).

    Your way out sounds sensible - but bizarrely it is more expensive for me to buy 3PFT than to buy fully comp.

    It is only recently that I have begun to fully appreciate there may be reasons why we have so many uninsured drivers on our roads.
    Yes, it's sometimes cheaper to have fully comp., especially as the car gets older and it can be cheaper to add a named driver. (Just add a wife, girlfriend or relative. The insurer may tell you all this if you haggle over the premium.)

    The 3rd party liability could be funded by a few p/litre on petrol and diesel to pay for the catastrophic injuries and other pay-outs, a.k.a. pay as you drive. If cars were produced with built in video cameras, responsibility for crashes would be clearer and there'd be less litigation.

    Less work for lawyers/less money for insurers?! So it probably won't happen with the current govt.!

    To provide cheap cover to over 50s, Saga merely buy a bulk policy from one of the high street insurers. I can't remember which. I've never paid more than £100-50/year. Probably no-one over ~35 should either.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Ishmael_Z said:



    3rd party is, oddly, often more expensive than comp, and saga isn't usually cheap for anything - might be worth looking at alternatives.

    Yes, I was told by my insurer that they considered that people who only took 3rd party insurance were showing themselves to be more reckless and therefore higher risk. It's a bit like the payday loans company Wonga - they have a scale on their website where you move a cursor to see what you can borrow. If you move it straight to the top, I'm told they regard you as higher risk and charge more interest than if ou thoughtfully waggle it to and fro weighing up the options.

    It's all horrid, but you can see they might be factually correct.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    ydoethur said:

    Toms said:
    It does remind me however of the historian who commented that Watergate showed how robust the checks on the President's powers are.
    It's human to clutch at straws.

    As for English weather (Michael Fish) , British elections (Theresa May), and much else, skepticism is the order.

    Whatever, Trump may be causing serious bruising to society and its governance. And not just for the US.
  • Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.

    I am not sure that wages will make much of a difference. As we have seen, the economy is not a deciding factor these days in the way it used to be. I don't expect that Trump will lose many actual votes in 2020, but I think there is a very good chance the Democrat vote will be a lot more efficient because a lot more Democrats who either stayed at home in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein will go to polling stations specifically to defeat him.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.

    I am not sure that wages will make much of a difference. As we have seen, the economy is not a deciding factor these days in the way it used to be. I don't expect that Trump will lose many actual votes in 2020, but I think there is a very good chance the Democrat vote will be a lot more efficient because a lot more Democrats who either stayed at home in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein will go to polling stations specifically to defeat him.

    I suspect that there’s a lot in that. IIRC American elections, of any sort, are not notable for high turnouts.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.

    I am not sure that wages will make much of a difference. As we have seen, the economy is not a deciding factor these days in the way it used to be. I don't expect that Trump will lose many actual votes in 2020, but I think there is a very good chance the Democrat vote will be a lot more efficient because a lot more Democrats who either stayed at home in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein will go to polling stations specifically to defeat him.

    I think there are still votes for the Republicans to gain in the Mid West. After 1994, blue collar white voters broke heavily Republican in the South; after 2008, they broke heavily Republican in Appalachia and the edges of the South. I expect the trend will be same in the Mid West, in years to come.

  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I am not sure many Trump voters are likely to be won back by the Democrats. The votes lost to him are cultural, not political or economic. But what really cost Hillary in 2016 was that a lot of key Obama voters did not turn out for her. They either stayed at home (African Americans) or voted for Jill Stein (lefty whites). The evidence from 2017 seems to indicate that motivation to get rid of Trump has now become the deciding factor for many of these disaffected Democrats. If that remains the case until 2020, then he is toast - not even voter suppression will help. It may also help the Democrats generically in the elections to both houses in November, though it may not be enough to win the Senate.

    In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Trump won by less than 1% and the Electoral College. A more populist economic message from Sanders may have won those states

    Quite possibly. But Trump is doing all he can to ensure that next time it will not matter.

    At the moment though if the economy grows further he may boost his re election chances

    Possibly - but that would mean more people switching from the Democrats. I am not sure that will happen.

    For the first time in ages, blue collar real wages are growing quite rapidly in the US. I doubt if that is due to anything that Trump has done, but I expect he will get the credit for it in the Mid West.

    The Democrats can just about win the Electoral College without the Mid West, but it's a very narrow path to victory.

    I am not sure that wages will make much of a difference. As we have seen, the economy is not a deciding factor these days in the way it used to be. I don't expect that Trump will lose many actual votes in 2020, but I think there is a very good chance the Democrat vote will be a lot more efficient because a lot more Democrats who either stayed at home in 2016 or voted for Jill Stein will go to polling stations specifically to defeat him.

    The Democrats are also unlikely to make the same mistakes as they did in 2016 in getting complacent because Hillary was comfortably ahead in the polls and they were facing an absolute clown. The combination of the Comey letter and Trump's vote efficiency did for them - they now know they can't take the Mid-West for granted.

    I do think there's still a potential problem with the Bernie or bust crowd - if he runs again and loses to a more moderate candidate they'll still kick up a massive stink and spout the same idiocies about how anyone to the right of Bernie is the moral equivalent of Trump.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. MJW, that's only a partial truth, though. When the polls were neck-and-neck, Clinton referred to half the electorate as a basket of deplorables, then wasted resources in ultra-safe California rather than sending them to battleground states.

    She could've and should've won. The Comey letter was unfortunate for her, but her fate was still in her hands and she screwed it up.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Bernie Sanders will, in September of this year, the mid-term, be 77. At the time of the election in November 2020 he will be 79, suggesting that if he were elected, and served a full term he’d be in his 84th year at the end of his term.
    I really don’t see it. I’m 79 now and I wouldn’t vote for a man of my age. Or a woman.

    If he could find a feisty lady with more or less his views, of course, if I were in the US I’d be out of the streets canvassing or watever they do over there.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Not really. The Tories did actually reach out to new supporters, if losing some of their previous ones.
    So did Clinton, but they were new supporters on her own terms. Campaigning in Arizona and North Carolina, but not the parts where the swing voters lived. Similarly May campaigning in all the northern working class seats and not thinking about the suburban middle class areas that were swinging to Corbyn

    Superficial? Maybe. But definitely present.
    Clinton did better in Texas and Arizona in 2016 than Obama did in 2012 but failed to win either while also losing the rustbelt. May also did better than Cameron in northern working class seats but lost a number of more middle class marginal seats because of the dementia tax
    Not much to do with the dementia tax, everything to do with Brexit. Her great mistake was thinking the younger social liberals Cameron won over had nowhere to go and that there would be no electoral downside to courting Kippers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    OFSTED did that with my school in around 1998 - they picked one of the classes I was in and said everybody was 'white English'.

    An Irish pupil and I both took a fiendish teenage delight in getting that particular inspector into very real trouble...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited January 2018

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    About 10 years ago, when a CAB Trustee we had an Inspection from HQ. The female person from Head Office was, she said, surprised to be met by three middle-aged to elderly white males as the Manager, the Chair and the ‘other’ Trustee, brought in so that there were three of us!
  • Jamaicans to the the left of me; Trump to the right;
    Here I am; bigoted from Watford.


    Apols to Steelers Wheel.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Doethur, ha. Good. It's a spectacularly stupid thing to criticise.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited January 2018

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    He seemed to arguing against ‘inclusivity’ generally, not on occasions where inclusivity e.g. in the situation you describe - is not possible because of the demographics of the area. Although I have to say, its not just his wheelchair ramp comments which are problematic. I don’t quite get why Young seems to upset that schools should be inclusive of, and try to help children with dyslexia etc.

    I think Young’s comment reinforces all the negative stereotypes many have about the Conservative party.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    MJW said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Not really. The Tories did actually reach out to new supporters, if losing some of their previous ones.
    So did Clinton, but they were new supporters on her own terms. Campaigning in Arizona and North Carolina, but not the parts where the swing voters lived. Similarly May campaigning in all the northern working class seats and not thinking about the suburban middle class areas that were swinging to Corbyn

    Superficial? Maybe. But definitely present.
    Clinton did better in Texas and Arizona in 2016 than Obama did in 2012 but failed to win either while also losing the rustbelt. May also did better than Cameron in northern working class seats but lost a number of more middle class marginal seats because of the dementia tax
    Not much to do with the dementia tax, everything to do with Brexit. Her great mistake was thinking the younger social liberals Cameron won over had nowhere to go and that there would be no electoral downside to courting Kippers.
    The Conservatives were 0.5% short of an overall majority. There were lots of issues that stopped them getting that 0.5%. Had Cameron disowned the Brexit vote, then I think the Conservatives would have done better in London, but the Conservatives would have suffered elsewhere.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    He seemed to arguing against ‘inclusivity’ generally, not on occasions where inclusivity e.g. in the situation you describe - is not possible because of the demographics of the area. Although I have to say, its not just his wheelchair ramp comments which are problematic. I don’t quite get why Young seems to upset that schools should be inclusive of, and try to help children with dyslexia etc.

    I think Young’s comment reinforces all the negative stereotypes many have about the Conservative party.
    Let's not forget that self-confessed former cocaine user Toby Young was desperate to set up a 'free' school in Acton so that his precious offspring did not have to mix with the chavvy kids from the South Acton Estate.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    What's wrong with gender diversity?
  • BarnamBarnam Posts: 6
    Protests in Iran getting louder, but nothing from the EU or UK to help the protesters. The silence of the wolves!

    Today in #Rasht, chanting “Death to the Dictator!” For those asking if movement is dying down, appears it’s gaining momentum in numbers and in cities. There has been, however, a slowdown in sending videos as Telegram & Instagram are blocked in certain areas. #iranprotests pic.twitter.com/zNVbnOLBcQ

    — Lisa Daftari (@LisaDaftari) December 31, 2017
    </scri
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited January 2018
    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.
  • Let's not forget that self-confessed former cocaine user Toby Young was desperate to set up a 'free' school in Acton so that his precious offspring did not have to mix with the chavvy kids from the South Acton Estate.

    I know enough villians/police/free-masons/suppliers to suggest most people would not know cocaine from Pepsi-Max. Snorting baking-powder is not recommended. ;)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Barnam said:

    Protests in Iran getting louder, but nothing from the EU or UK to help the protesters. The silence of the wolves!

    Today in #Rasht, chanting “Death to the Dictator!” For those asking if movement is dying down, appears it’s gaining momentum in numbers and in cities. There has been, however, a slowdown in sending videos as Telegram & Instagram are blocked in certain areas. #iranprotests pic.twitter.com/zNVbnOLBcQ

    — Lisa Daftari (@LisaDaftari) December 31, 2017

    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/947458422336819200
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    He seemed to arguing against ‘inclusivity’ generally, not on occasions where inclusivity e.g. in the situation you describe - is not possible because of the demographics of the area. Although I have to say, its not just his wheelchair ramp comments which are problematic. I don’t quite get why Young seems to upset that schools should be inclusive of, and try to help children with dyslexia etc.

    I think Young’s comment reinforces all the negative stereotypes many have about the Conservative party.
    Toby Young is spectacularly twattish. He would would have got nowhere in life had it not been for his parental connections.
    His father must be spinning in his grave!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. EPG, when it's promoted at the expense of meritocracy (see board members of FTSE 100 companies, with some politicians wanting quotas) or seized upon (equality, rather than diversity) to propagate the myth of a wage gap.

    If equality were truly sought we'd hear more about the shockingly low numbers of women working in sewage treatment plants or emptying bins, of very low (sometimes non-existent) funding for male victims of domestic violence, or have female-only golf clubs railed against in the same way male-only clubs are periodically attacked.

    What matters is that people are treated equally and fairly. When the creed of diversity, which is neither good nor bad in and of itself, leads people to propose box-ticking quotas, judging people based on their race or gender rather than their personal capabilities, we've taken a wrong turn.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    isnt this diversity in action ?

    since a lot of public appointments come from the same pool of like minded people how does someone from outside the pool make it less inclusive ?

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Barnam said:

    Protests in Iran getting louder, but nothing from the EU or UK to help the protesters. The silence of the wolves!

    The FS has had something to say about it, but is obviously constrained by other considerations from saying very much. What should we be doing, and what does ”The silence of the wolves!” mean?



  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Mr. EPG, when it's promoted at the expense of meritocracy (see board members of FTSE 100 companies, with some politicians wanting quotas) or seized upon (equality, rather than diversity) to propagate the myth of a wage gap.

    If equality were truly sought we'd hear more about the shockingly low numbers of women working in sewage treatment plants or emptying bins, of very low (sometimes non-existent) funding for male victims of domestic violence, or have female-only golf clubs railed against in the same way male-only clubs are periodically attacked.

    What matters is that people are treated equally and fairly. When the creed of diversity, which is neither good nor bad in and of itself, leads people to propose box-ticking quotas, judging people based on their race or gender rather than their personal capabilities, we've taken a wrong turn.

    I am almost, but not completely certain that the Womens Institute does not accept male members. There are Lady Freemasons lodges, although, so far as I am aware no mixed ones.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    isnt this diversity in action ?

    since a lot of public appointments come from the same pool of like minded people how does someone from outside the pool make it less inclusive ?

    I'm not sure how the Hon.Toby Young qualifies as an outsider. He's an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise. Theresa May is just throwing a bone to the numbskull right, same as she has with every other discretionary choice she has had since she became Prime Minister.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    isnt this diversity in action ?

    since a lot of public appointments come from the same pool of like minded people how does someone from outside the pool make it less inclusive ?

    I'm not sure how the Hon.Toby Young qualifies as an outsider. He's an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise. Theresa May is just throwing a bone to the numbskull right, same as she has with every other discretionary choice she has had since she became Prime Minister.
    well if he's as thick as you say, he'll certainly have differing views
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    Toby Young is spectacularly twattish. He would would have got nowhere in life had it not been for his parental connections.
    His father must be spinning in his grave!

    Toby Young bought his first house in London in the 80's/90's for £50K given to him as a gift by his family (if memory serves, by his father). If you are of a particularly malevolent bent and have a Wikipedia account you can track his property purchases via various interviews he has given and put that info on his wikibio - the TL:DR version is "he's made millions". I thought of doing it but restrained myself, for reasons I don't fully understand.

  • Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    tyson said:

    That's a bit random....I noticed Mirror in the Bathroom was played on Jools last night poor calibre affair to be honest....

    A surprisingly good fight scene in "Grosse Pointe Blank" has Mirror in the Bathroom in it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ScNLt2zNc

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
    What qualification does he have for the role, apart from being an enthusiastic Brexiter with a loud gob and some well-placed chums? He's only just back from holiday with the sister of the man who has appointed him.
  • Mr. EPG, when it's promoted at the expense of meritocracy (see board members of FTSE 100 companies, with some politicians wanting quotas) or seized upon (equality, rather than diversity) to propagate the myth of a wage gap.

    If equality were truly sought we'd hear more about the shockingly low numbers of women working in sewage treatment plants or emptying bins, of very low (sometimes non-existent) funding for male victims of domestic violence, or have female-only golf clubs railed against in the same way male-only clubs are periodically attacked.

    What matters is that people are treated equally and fairly. When the creed of diversity, which is neither good nor bad in and of itself, leads people to propose box-ticking quotas, judging people based on their race or gender rather than their personal capabilities, we've taken a wrong turn.

    I am almost, but not completely certain that the Womens Institute does not accept male members. There are Lady Freemasons lodges, although, so far as I am aware no mixed ones.
    "....... the Womens Institute does not accept male members." :o
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
    What qualification does he have for the role, apart from being an enthusiastic Brexiter with a loud gob and some well-placed chums? He's only just back from holiday with the sister of the man who has appointed him.
    Wiki:

    Young was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[23][24] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education.

    On 29 October 2016 it was announced that Young had been appointed Director of the New Schools Network, a post he took up full-time in January 2017. The New Schools Network is a charity that was set up in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.


    One could also ask what qualifications the other board members have:

    Aside from Young, the new members include Katja Hall, a previous head of public relations for HSBC, Elizabeth Fagan of Boots and Simon Levine, chief executive of the international law firm DLA Piper.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/01/toby-young-universities-regulator-office-for-students
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    Bernie Sanders will, in September of this year, the mid-term, be 77. At the time of the election in November 2020 he will be 79, suggesting that if he were elected, and served a full term he’d be in his 84th year at the end of his term.
    I really don’t see it. I’m 79 now and I wouldn’t vote for a man of my age. Or a woman.

    If he could find a feisty lady with more or less his views, of course, if I were in the US I’d be out of the streets canvassing or watever they do over there.

    There is door-to-door canvassing here in the areas that are densely-populated enough to make it practical.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
    What qualification does he have for the role, apart from being an enthusiastic Brexiter with a loud gob and some well-placed chums? He's only just back from holiday with the sister of the man who has appointed him.
    Wiki:

    Young was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[23][24] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education.

    On 29 October 2016 it was announced that Young had been appointed Director of the New Schools Network, a post he took up full-time in January 2017. The New Schools Network is a charity that was set up in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.


    One could also ask what qualifications the other board members have:

    Aside from Young, the new members include Katja Hall, a previous head of public relations for HSBC, Elizabeth Fagan of Boots and Simon Levine, chief executive of the international law firm DLA Piper.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/01/toby-young-universities-regulator-office-for-students
    So no relevant experience of universities.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
    What qualification does he have for the role, apart from being an enthusiastic Brexiter with a loud gob and some well-placed chums? He's only just back from holiday with the sister of the man who has appointed him.
    Wiki:

    Young was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[23][24] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education.

    On 29 October 2016 it was announced that Young had been appointed Director of the New Schools Network, a post he took up full-time in January 2017. The New Schools Network is a charity that was set up in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.


    One could also ask what qualifications the other board members have:

    Aside from Young, the new members include Katja Hall, a previous head of public relations for HSBC, Elizabeth Fagan of Boots and Simon Levine, chief executive of the international law firm DLA Piper.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/01/toby-young-universities-regulator-office-for-students
    So no relevant experience of universities.
    Like the rest of the board by the looks of it.....
  • Anyone surprised that an unqualified but vigorously Brexity journalist has been appointed as university regulator? Thought not. Evidently Mrs May is not intending to become more inclusive in 2018.

    Though it's heartening to learn there are circumstances in which @Alanbrooke could be persuaded to vote for me in an election.

    Shouild journalists be disqualified from such a regulatory position?
    What qualification does he have for the role, apart from being an enthusiastic Brexiter with a loud gob and some well-placed chums? He's only just back from holiday with the sister of the man who has appointed him.
    Wiki:

    Young was the lead proposer and co-founder of the West London Free School, the first free school to sign a funding agreement with the Education Secretary, and is now a trustee of the charitable trust that sits above the school, having served as the CEO of the trust.[23][24] The trust opened a primary school in Hammersmith in 2013, a second primary in Earls Court in 2014 and a third primary in Kensington in 2016. Young is a follower of the American educationalist E.D. Hirsch and an advocate of a traditional, knowledge-based approach to education.

    On 29 October 2016 it was announced that Young had been appointed Director of the New Schools Network, a post he took up full-time in January 2017. The New Schools Network is a charity that was set up in 2009 to support groups setting up free schools.


    One could also ask what qualifications the other board members have:

    Aside from Young, the new members include Katja Hall, a previous head of public relations for HSBC, Elizabeth Fagan of Boots and Simon Levine, chief executive of the international law firm DLA Piper.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/01/toby-young-universities-regulator-office-for-students
    So no relevant experience of universities.
    Did they attend university perhaps?
  • Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, my mother's former school (as a workplace) was once criticised by inspectors for not having enough ethnic minority pupils. Where they expected the politically correct rainbow of skin tones to be found locally was not explained.

    Sometimes, inclusivity is just a bullshit codeword. Likewise diversity, which is rigorously applied to ethnicity and religion and gender, and rigorously fought against in some areas of opinion (cf Hamilton's boys and dresses remark).

    Young railing against wheelchair ramps is just plain stupid, however.

    He seemed to arguing against ‘inclusivity’ generally, not on occasions where inclusivity e.g. in the situation you describe - is not possible because of the demographics of the area. Although I have to say, its not just his wheelchair ramp comments which are problematic. I don’t quite get why Young seems to upset that schools should be inclusive of, and try to help children with dyslexia etc.

    I think Young’s comment reinforces all the negative stereotypes many have about the Conservative party.
    Let's not forget that self-confessed former cocaine user Toby Young was desperate to set up a 'free' school in Acton so that his precious offspring did not have to mix with the chavvy kids from the South Acton Estate.
    I didn’t know that was the reason he wanted to set up a free school....wow.

    @OldKingCole Yes, I’d heard about that. Him preaching about meritocracy seems awfully ironic given that.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    New thready thing over there...
This discussion has been closed.