Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters have more confidence that Trump will survive but are l

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 23 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters have more confidence that Trump will survive but are less convinced that he’ll be re-elected

Thanks yet again to Betdata.Io for their excellent historical and current political betting charts based on actual trades on the Betfair exchange.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,502
    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459
    edited January 23
    Let's see how far Mueller gets following the money before we rule out any vote for impeachment.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,824
    Third. Boris bidding for leadership....
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,502
    Nigelb said:

    Let's see how far Mueller gets following the money before we rule out any vote for impeachment.

    I'm not sure the detail matters. I mean, assume for the sake of argument that there's enough to impeach. If there isn't, they just get him to testify under oath for half an hour then do him for perjury, it doesn't matter what for, he's incapable of telling the truth.

    But finding evidence of crimes and misdemeanors isn't the problem. The Trump-inclined part of the GOP base have already been fed a load of stuff about the investigation being part of a huge conspiracy, so regardless of what Mueller comes up with, they're going to think it's a partisan witchhunt. Ultimately you need a majority in the House, then two-thirds of the Senate. The Dems are going to have a hard time getting the latter on their own, because they'd need to gain close to 20 seats, and there are only 8 GOP Senators running.

    At which point the question is simply, will a hypothetical Dem House vote to impeach, and will GOP moderates vote to convict. Which is basically a political question, and if half the GOP base is still with Trump, the answer is no.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,034

    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.

    +1
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,020

    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.

    Many non-Trump Republicans probably like having Trump in the White House, in the same way they are said to have liked Reagan and GWBush as genial front men with few ideas of their own. With Trump, they are free to write their own legislation, for which the battle is within the House and the party, not with the White House. This seems to have happened with Trump's two big bills so far on gutting Obamacare and cutting tax: both existing GOP programmes; neither with any obvious Trump stamp.

    Why would House Republicans want to throw this away? And for what? Pence might have his own ideas. It is said the GOP in the mid-1980s preferred to keep a deteriorating Reagan than Bush Sr.

    The only reason to dump Trump is if he costs Republicans their seats and majority. Trump will continue to 2020. Beyond that, does he want to stand again? Is his heart in it and does he want to try and help Ivanka become America's first woman president?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    As I have said before I think that there are is a very good chance of Trump being re-elected. We have been here before with that idiot George W Bush in the Whitehouse. He was re-elected easily.

    Trump has delivered to his base. He has delivered bigly, as he would put it, on the economy. Unemployment down, growth up and going up further on the back of his tax reforms, money for infrastructure that will undoubtedly be spent in key states and tax cuts for all with the emphasis on the lower paid (even if the rich inevitably saved more in absolute terms).

    In contrast, the chronic lack of leadership in the Democratic party has just resulted in the shutdown of the Federal Government only for them to realise it was their base that was being hurt and it really wasn't a good idea so they had to cave in with nothing of substance in return.

    Most of the people who say Trump is not re-electable are those who were certain that he would not be elected in the first place. Being wrong about that has not shaken their certainty. I see less reason to believe them now than I did in 2016.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 470
    IanB2 said:

    Third. Boris bidding for leadership....

    When is he not? An absolute charlatan!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    edited January 23
    From the last few years of politics, the one thing we know - to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld - is that there’s lots of things we don’t know.

    I can’t see the Democrats attempting a 2019 impeachment of Trump, it will just play into his hands that the Establishment is out to stop him MAGA and cement his intentions to run again in 2020. They know they don’t have the numbers in the Senate for conviction and government will do nothing else for months on end if impeachment proceeds.

    The Dems are better off leaving him where he is and get themselves organised - have 4 or 5 candidates run (not 2 or 12, we’ve seen how that ends up) and work out policies that they can sell to middle America and the swing states. Talking about bathrooms and abortion isn’t going to get them any new voters where they need them, and the electoral college doesn’t reward massive majorities in CA and NY if they can’t carry FL, WI and OH.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    DavidL said:

    As I have said before I think that there are is a very good chance of Trump being re-elected. We have been here before with that idiot George W Bush in the Whitehouse. He was re-elected easily.

    Trump has delivered to his base. He has delivered bigly, as he would put it, on the economy. Unemployment down, growth up and going up further on the back of his tax reforms, money for infrastructure that will undoubtedly be spent in key states and tax cuts for all with the emphasis on the lower paid (even if the rich inevitably saved more in absolute terms).

    In contrast, the chronic lack of leadership in the Democratic party has just resulted in the shutdown of the Federal Government only for them to realise it was their base that was being hurt and it really wasn't a good idea so they had to cave in with nothing of substance in return.

    Most of the people who say Trump is not re-electable are those who were certain that he would not be elected in the first place. Being wrong about that has not shaken their certainty. I see less reason to believe them now than I did in 2016.

    :+1:

    It’s the economy, stupid. And Trump is winning the economy, bigly.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M is once again trying her party's patience to the limit.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    DavidL said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M is once again trying her party's patience to the limit.
    Perhaps she wont make Brexit after all?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,301
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
    Edmund's early season form has been encouraging following improvements from his new coach. He lost a tight match against Dimitrov recently. An adjustment to his serve and more precision and power on the backhand has added to his game.

    The form line through his recent win against Chung (in the QF on the other half of the draw) and defeating Kevin Anderson (finalist at US Open - hard courts) in the first round were useful indicators that Edmund ranking of around 50 was too low.

    Nevertheless it's been a mighty impressive showing. If Edmund reaches the final he will break into the top twenty and become British number one.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    Fox take over of Sky could be blocked.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    This sort of thing will go down very well with those who vote Trump too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42784380

    America First tariffs on washing machines and solar panels from China and South Korea.

    Its not just the tariffs, it make offshoring your manufacturing more hazardous than it was before. Free traders will be appalled. The rust bucket states of the US will be delighted.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,846
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
    Edmund's early season form has been encouraging following improvements from his new coach. He lost a tight match against Dimitrov recently. An adjustment to his serve and more precision and power on the backhand has added to his game.

    The form line through his recent win against Chung (in the QF on the other half of the draw) and defeating Kevin Anderson (finalist at US Open - hard courts) in the first round were useful indicators that Edmund ranking of around 50 was too low.

    Nevertheless it's been a mighty impressive showing. If Edmund reaches the final he will break into the top twenty and become British number one.
    There is the small matter of Nadal in the way (or Cilic, but probably Nadal).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459

    Nigelb said:

    Let's see how far Mueller gets following the money before we rule out any vote for impeachment.

    I'm not sure the detail matters. I mean, assume for the sake of argument that there's enough to impeach. If there isn't, they just get him to testify under oath for half an hour then do him for perjury, it doesn't matter what for, he's incapable of telling the truth.

    But finding evidence of crimes and misdemeanors isn't the problem. The Trump-inclined part of the GOP base have already been fed a load of stuff about the investigation being part of a huge conspiracy, so regardless of what Mueller comes up with, they're going to think it's a partisan witchhunt. Ultimately you need a majority in the House, then two-thirds of the Senate. The Dems are going to have a hard time getting the latter on their own, because they'd need to gain close to 20 seats, and there are only 8 GOP Senators running.

    At which point the question is simply, will a hypothetical Dem House vote to impeach, and will GOP moderates vote to convict. Which is basically a political question, and if half the GOP base is still with Trump, the answer is no.
    A vote to impeach is quite possible; to convict extremely unlikely.

    In the end it will be a tactical decision by the Democrats. If Mueller unearths a credible financial trail (and I don't know what the odds on that really are, but almost certainly not zero), then there is nothing to be lost by so voting.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    edited January 23
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
    Edmund's early season form has been encouraging following improvements from his new coach. He lost a tight match against Dimitrov recently. An adjustment to his serve and more precision and power on the backhand has added to his game.

    The form line through his recent win against Chung (in the QF on the other half of the draw) and defeating Kevin Anderson (finalist at US Open - hard courts) in the first round were useful indicators that Edmund ranking of around 50 was too low.

    Nevertheless it's been a mighty impressive showing. If Edmund reaches the final he will break into the top twenty and become British number one.
    I would agree with all of that Your Grace, and still say that I didn't expect him to beat the World No. 3 especially in fairly emphatic fashion.

    Edit - and if he can beat (presumably) Nadal, there is a fair case to be made he's tournament favourite. But that really would be an upset and a half.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,824

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M would have been better off having bitten the bullet and sacked him. She can't sack him now and he is on a win-win as far as public grandstanding at cabinet is concerned.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
    Edmund's early season form has been encouraging following improvements from his new coach. He lost a tight match against Dimitrov recently. An adjustment to his serve and more precision and power on the backhand has added to his game.

    The form line through his recent win against Chung (in the QF on the other half of the draw) and defeating Kevin Anderson (finalist at US Open - hard courts) in the first round were useful indicators that Edmund ranking of around 50 was too low.

    Nevertheless it's been a mighty impressive showing. If Edmund reaches the final he will break into the top twenty and become British number one.
    The most telling anecdote was his practice session at the US Open last year with McEnroe, who told him he didn't have a slice backhand. He does now.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688
    Fun to see those who have been howling about the NHS needing more money squirming to find a way to condemn Boris, because Brexit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Kyle Edmund reaches the semis in Aus. Really didn't see that coming.

    Did anyone?!
    Edmund's early season form has been encouraging following improvements from his new coach. He lost a tight match against Dimitrov recently. An adjustment to his serve and more precision and power on the backhand has added to his game.

    The form line through his recent win against Chung (in the QF on the other half of the draw) and defeating Kevin Anderson (finalist at US Open - hard courts) in the first round were useful indicators that Edmund ranking of around 50 was too low.

    Nevertheless it's been a mighty impressive showing. If Edmund reaches the final he will break into the top twenty and become British number one.
    The most telling anecdote was his practice session at the US Open last year with McEnroe, who told him he didn't have a slice backhand. He does now.
    It's helped him carve through the draw :smile:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    edited January 23
    IanB2 said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M would have been better off having bitten the bullet and sacked him. She can't sack him now and he is on a win-win as far as public grandstanding at cabinet is concerned.
    Certainly it is hard to understand why the admirable Justine Greening was sacked for doing pretty well and he is still in office having screwed up more comprehensively than the quartermaster of Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335
    On Trump, a relevant question is whether, as EiT says, he'll continue to be President without blowing the world up. If Republicans think there's even a modest chance of that, they'll find an excuse to get rid of him, just as any of us would about anyone. At present the shutdown fuss doesn't seem to have damaged the Democrats or helped Trump:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Helping the rust belt economy does count as delivery of promises for some important swing voters, but on current trends it won't be nearly enough for re-eleciton.

    Interesting piece meanwhile on Corbynites and the distinction between scepticism about capitalism and the absence of a fully-fledged alternative:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/23/davos-capitalism-corbynites

    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,425
    DavidL said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M is once again trying her party's patience to the limit.
    What now?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,459
    DavidL said:

    This sort of thing will go down very well with those who vote Trump too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42784380

    America First tariffs on washing machines and solar panels from China and South Korea.

    Its not just the tariffs, it make offshoring your manufacturing more hazardous than it was before. Free traders will be appalled. The rust bucket states of the US will be delighted.

    Sure, all those solar panel manufacturers in the rust bucket states will be delighted. All none of them, unless you count Florida and Mississippi...
    Meantime, the tariff will likely cost several tens of thousand jobs downstream.
    https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2017/07/u-s-solar-panel-manufacturing-not-dead/

    Though I guess Whirlpool will be quite pleased.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,516
    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688



    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    'reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up' is surely going to put the revolutionary fire in the bellies of homeowners in swing seats.

    Oh, wait....

    I suspect these ads from 2015 might become rather timely again:

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,516
    The most interesting point to note about Boris Johnson's private thoughts on the NHS emerging now is that he evidently thinks he needs to be centre stage now. Either he thinks that the end is fairly nigh and he wants to be in the selectorate's minds as a relevant choice or he fears he is slipping out of relevance and he is scrabbling for the limelight like a fading soap star leaking a sex tape.

    I think it's option b but the deputation of Conservative MPs yesterday have been remarkably tight-lipped.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    This sort of thing will go down very well with those who vote Trump too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42784380

    America First tariffs on washing machines and solar panels from China and South Korea.

    Its not just the tariffs, it make offshoring your manufacturing more hazardous than it was before. Free traders will be appalled. The rust bucket states of the US will be delighted.

    Sure, all those solar panel manufacturers in the rust bucket states will be delighted. All none of them, unless you count Florida and Mississippi...
    Meantime, the tariff will likely cost several tens of thousand jobs downstream.
    https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2017/07/u-s-solar-panel-manufacturing-not-dead/

    Though I guess Whirlpool will be quite pleased.
    Florida isn't a rustbelt state but it is a crucial swing one.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,301
    DavidL said:

    "There is the small matter of Nadal in the way (or Cilic, but probably Nadal).

    ydoethur said:

    I would agree with all of that Your Grace, and still say that I didn't expect him to beat the World No. 3 especially in fairly emphatic fashion.

    Edit - and if he can beat (presumably) Nadal, there is a fair case to be made he's tournament favourite. But that really would be an upset and a half.

    Nigelb said:

    The most telling anecdote was his practice session at the US Open last year with McEnroe, who told him he didn't have a slice backhand. He does now.

    Nadal is clearly favourite against Cillic and Edmund but I wouldn't say Nadal has been at his best. Federer in the other half of the draw is the overall tournament favourite - Age obviously no barrier to superior performance .... as I often advise Mrs JackW .... :smiley:

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,479

    The most interesting point to note about Boris Johnson's private thoughts on the NHS emerging now is that he evidently thinks he needs to be centre stage now. Either he thinks that the end is fairly nigh and he wants to be in the selectorate's minds as a relevant choice or he fears he is slipping out of relevance and he is scrabbling for the limelight like a fading soap star leaking a sex tape.

    I think it's option b but the deputation of Conservative MPs yesterday have been remarkably tight-lipped.

    Soames retweeting this yesterday:
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789

    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.

    Many non-Trump Republicans probably like having Trump in the White House, in the same way they are said to have liked Reagan and GWBush as genial front men with few ideas of their own. With Trump, they are free to write their own legislation, for which the battle is within the House and the party, not with the White House. This seems to have happened with Trump's two big bills so far on gutting Obamacare and cutting tax: both existing GOP programmes; neither with any obvious Trump stamp.

    Why would House Republicans want to throw this away? And for what? Pence might have his own ideas. It is said the GOP in the mid-1980s preferred to keep a deteriorating Reagan than Bush Sr.
    And Pence, if installed after Jan 2019, would then have the chance to run at the next two presidential elections.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M would have been better off having bitten the bullet and sacked him. She can't sack him now and he is on a win-win as far as public grandstanding at cabinet is concerned.
    Certainly it is hard to understand why the admirable Justine Greening was sacked for doing pretty well and he is still in office having screwed up more comprehensively than the quartermaster of Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings.

    ttps://youtu.be/B16lWZ_JPaQ
    It’s hardly the PM’s fault that Ms Greening turned down a promotion.
    A good opportunity for some new blood in Esther McVey to make her mark in a very difficult department, so every cloud...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789

    On Trump, a relevant question is whether, as EiT says, he'll continue to be President without blowing the world up. If Republicans think there's even a modest chance of that, they'll find an excuse to get rid of him, just as any of us would about anyone. At present the shutdown fuss doesn't seem to have damaged the Democrats or helped Trump:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Helping the rust belt economy does count as delivery of promises for some important swing voters, but on current trends it won't be nearly enough for re-election

    That depends on the alternative. If the Democrats put up someone as bad as Hillary again (yes, Bernie, I'm looking at you for one), Trump could well win a second term, particularly if - whatever the objective truth - he's seen as having delivered on the economy.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,688

    The most interesting point to note about Boris Johnson's private thoughts on the NHS emerging now is that he evidently thinks he needs to be centre stage now. Either he thinks that the end is fairly nigh and he wants to be in the selectorate's minds as a relevant choice or he fears he is slipping out of relevance and he is scrabbling for the limelight like a fading soap star leaking a sex tape.

    I think it's option b but the deputation of Conservative MPs yesterday have been remarkably tight-lipped.

    Soames retweeting this yesterday:
    I'm surprised you're not praying for Mrs May to stay. Any leadership replacement would likely result in a harder Brexit. Have you spoken to an average Conservative activist recently?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,034
    Mortimer said:



    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    'reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up' is surely going to put the revolutionary fire in the bellies of homeowners in swing seats.

    Oh, wait....

    I suspect these ads from 2015 might become rather timely again:

    Interesting that there was no mention of the fact that it was a coalition government and all Tory gains were from their coalition partners.

    Why it’ll be 50 years before a UK mainland party goes into Coalition with them again. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Tory candidates in DUP seats, to be honest!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,335

    The most interesting point to note about Boris Johnson's private thoughts on the NHS emerging now is that he evidently thinks he needs to be centre stage now. Either he thinks that the end is fairly nigh and he wants to be in the selectorate's minds as a relevant choice or he fears he is slipping out of relevance and he is scrabbling for the limelight like a fading soap star leaking a sex tape.

    I think it's option b but the deputation of Conservative MPs yesterday have been remarkably tight-lipped.

    Soames retweeting this yesterday:
    Boris seeking attention is no more novel than the Pope saying mass. But there does seem to be a coordinated move to criticise May, mostly from the Remainer side but not about Europe - rather, they seem to be asking what else she's for apart from Brexit. The answer does appear to be "nothing very much, and not really even that in any meaningful sense". Whether that absence of an answer is enough to provoke a leadership challenge is the question.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,225

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,516
    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,835
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M would have been better off having bitten the bullet and sacked him. She can't sack him now and he is on a win-win as far as public grandstanding at cabinet is concerned.
    Certainly it is hard to understand why the admirable Justine Greening was sacked for doing pretty well and he is still in office having screwed up more comprehensively than the quartermaster of Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings.

    ttps://youtu.be/B16lWZ_JPaQ
    It’s hardly the PM’s fault that Ms Greening turned down a promotion.
    A good opportunity for some new blood in Esther McVey to make her mark in a very difficult department, so every cloud...
    Work and Pensions is not a promotion from education. Certainly not in terms of ability to make an impact. I say again, losing her was a stupid decision. And I will keep saying it because it's a simple statement of fact.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,365

    Mortimer said:



    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    'reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up' is surely going to put the revolutionary fire in the bellies of homeowners in swing seats.

    Oh, wait....

    I suspect these ads from 2015 might become rather timely again:

    Interesting that there was no mention of the fact that it was a coalition government and all Tory gains were from their coalition partners.

    Why it’ll be 50 years before a UK mainland party goes into Coalition with them again. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Tory candidates in DUP seats, to be honest!
    Yes I'm sure no coalition partners anywhere in the world claim credit for more than their fair share. What's that 'all' the gains came from the LDS (who I voted for in 2015 btw)? I stand corrected, everyone claims more than a fair share.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,462
    Good morning, everyone.

    Surprised Edmund's got through to the semis, but good for him. I wonder what odds he was to win the quarters?

    On-topic: Trump may not necessarily seek re-election.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135

    On Trump, a relevant question is whether, as EiT says, he'll continue to be President without blowing the world up. If Republicans think there's even a modest chance of that, they'll find an excuse to get rid of him, just as any of us would about anyone. At present the shutdown fuss doesn't seem to have damaged the Democrats or helped Trump:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Helping the rust belt economy does count as delivery of promises for some important swing voters, but on current trends it won't be nearly enough for re-eleciton.

    Interesting piece meanwhile on Corbynites and the distinction between scepticism about capitalism and the absence of a fully-fledged alternative:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/23/davos-capitalism-corbynites

    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    IMHO, there are more votes that the Republicans can win among blue collar whites in the mid West (I think they've won all they can in the South and Appalachia). An economic upturn which benefits such voters will make it hard for the Democrats to gain any ground there.

    The Democrats can win without the rust belt, if they flip North Carolina and Florida, but it's a narrow path to victory.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,944

    The most interesting point to note about Boris Johnson's private thoughts on the NHS emerging now is that he evidently thinks he needs to be centre stage now. Either he thinks that the end is fairly nigh and he wants to be in the selectorate's minds as a relevant choice or he fears he is slipping out of relevance and he is scrabbling for the limelight like a fading soap star leaking a sex tape.

    I think it's option b but the deputation of Conservative MPs yesterday have been remarkably tight-lipped.

    Soames retweeting this yesterday:
    Boris seeking attention is no more novel than the Pope saying mass. But there does seem to be a coordinated move to criticise May, mostly from the Remainer side but not about Europe - rather, they seem to be asking what else she's for apart from Brexit. The answer does appear to be "nothing very much, and not really even that in any meaningful sense". Whether that absence of an answer is enough to provoke a leadership challenge is the question.
    I think there are plenty of Tories out there which want the government to 'do' stuff. Labour will certainly be campaigning as a party of change at the next election.

    One of the main reasons that the tories suffered at last years election was the complete lack of a reason to vote 'for' them. When a party becomes about management, rather than changes, it's one of the major signs it's time is up.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,425
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Morning all,

    A fine morning for Boris to be out and about making sure he is not forgotten.

    Mrs M would have been better off having bitten the bullet and sacked him. She can't sack him now and he is on a win-win as far as public grandstanding at cabinet is concerned.
    Certainly it is hard to understand why the admirable Justine Greening was sacked for doing pretty well and he is still in office having screwed up more comprehensively than the quartermaster of Olaf the Hairy, High King of all the Vikings.

    Not hard at all. It’s power dynamics
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,824
    Scott_P said:
    He wins either way. The question is how May can avoid sacking him now he has gone rogue as FS (and FFS) on domestic policy. The only way out for her is to sack him and stump up the money, since sacking him and denying the NHS would be suicidal.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,034
    kle4 said:

    Mortimer said:



    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    'reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up' is surely going to put the revolutionary fire in the bellies of homeowners in swing seats.

    Oh, wait....

    I suspect these ads from 2015 might become rather timely again:

    Interesting that there was no mention of the fact that it was a coalition government and all Tory gains were from their coalition partners.

    Why it’ll be 50 years before a UK mainland party goes into Coalition with them again. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Tory candidates in DUP seats, to be honest!
    Yes I'm sure no coalition partners anywhere in the world claim credit for more than their fair share. What's that 'all' the gains came from the LDS (who I voted for in 2015 btw)? I stand corrected, everyone claims more than a fair share.
    There were a few Tory gains from Lab, but equally losses to Lab as well.
    And I’m not saying that politics isn’t a rough old trade!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135

    Mortimer said:



    I think this is more of a second term issue (which for age reasons probably would be with a Corbyn successor). In 2022 the urgent leftish issues will be things like the NHS and benefits and there will be more than enough to do fixing those and establishing reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up. Long-term radical change from capitalism would take longer, if the will was there.

    'reasonable confidence that Labour won't blow the economy up' is surely going to put the revolutionary fire in the bellies of homeowners in swing seats.

    Oh, wait....

    I suspect these ads from 2015 might become rather timely again:

    Interesting that there was no mention of the fact that it was a coalition government and all Tory gains were from their coalition partners.

    Why it’ll be 50 years before a UK mainland party goes into Coalition with them again. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Tory candidates in DUP seats, to be honest!
    The Tories have gained from Labour and SNP too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,516
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    The time for drawing up proposals is now, in the early stages of a Parliament, when the public can explore the pros and cons. Not in the heat of an election campaign. Neither main party is up to the task, it seems.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    Only a government with a large majority could achieve that.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,652
    Scott_P said:
    Too early for me obviously, I was trying to work out who Biff Hammond is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    On the midterms, the Democrats should take the House and the Republicans keep the Senate (although there is a slim chance it could be tied with Pence having the casting vote). As for Trump's 're election it depends on the economy and who the Democrats nominate, currently both Biden and Sanders are ahead of Oprah and Harris in the Democratic primary polls
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    The time for drawing up proposals is now, in the early stages of a Parliament, when the public can explore the pros and cons. Not in the heat of an election campaign. Neither main party is up to the task, it seems.
    Agreed. I think we can all agree that an election manifesto was probably the wrong time to present the policy. Hopefully everyone is coming round to the view that the status quo is unsustainable, and that previous failures to address and reform social care have left the NHS woefully short of beds over the past few winters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    Only a government with a large majority could achieve that.
    I think that was the plan, and they rushed the policy into the manifesto in the hope that a large Commons majority would allow them to push it through Parliament.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,081
    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493

    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.

    Many non-Trump Republicans probably like having Trump in the White House, in the same way they are said to have liked Reagan and GWBush as genial front men with few ideas of their own. With Trump, they are free to write their own legislation, for which the battle is within the House and the party, not with the White House. This seems to have happened with Trump's two big bills so far on gutting Obamacare and cutting tax: both existing GOP programmes; neither with any obvious Trump stamp.

    Why would House Republicans want to throw this away? And for what? Pence might have his own ideas. It is said the GOP in the mid-1980s preferred to keep a deteriorating Reagan than Bush Sr.

    The only reason to dump Trump is if he costs Republicans their seats and majority. Trump will continue to 2020. Beyond that, does he want to stand again? Is his heart in it and does he want to try and help Ivanka become America's first woman president?
    Both Clinton and Obama saw their party lose control of the House in their first mid terms and were re elected
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135
    WRT capitalism's failings, there are too many large companies whose directors believe in ripping people off. Ripping off customers, employees, shareholders, and pensioners. A case in point is Barclays' attempt to transfer its pension fund to its profitable, but risky, investment bank, instead of it's profitable, and secure, retail bank.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,824
    edited January 23
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment. Harmonising the NI threshold with the personal tax allowance at the same time would avoid hitting the lowest paid (or pensioned) and the extra income from ex-NI on savings (ex-ISA), investment and private pension income would raise a fair bit more for the NHS
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,944
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    Only a government with a large majority could achieve that.
    which given the likely position of the two main parties is unlikely to happen for a long time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 40,493
    edited January 23
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment.
    The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,443
    I see the BBC is still at the early stages of going cold turkey for its Kipper addiction (apologies for the food mash up) - Bolton on Today between 7-8am then Farage on the 8-9am slot. Who needs a 'front bench' when you've got Beeb promotions on your side?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,479
    Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,020
    HYUFD said:

    I guess these things are sort-of connected in that even if the Dems sweep the mid-terms they don't take office until 2019, then if they were going to impeach that takes some time as well, and the fact that this has happened at all implies that he's managed to make it through the first couple of years without blowing the world up.

    If it looks like Trump is going to be out on his ear at the next presidential election in any case, it's not clear that it would be worth the Dems' while to get rid of him: They put a better GOP candidate in, and simultaneously rile up his base. Likewise any GOP senators who might otherwise be tempted to vote against Trump; Voting to impeach creates a permanent betrayal narrative in the Trumpist wing of their party that will never go away, and they spend the rest of their lives in legitimate fear of assassination. They might do that if they feel like there's a genuine risk to the republic, but they'd more likely calculate that he won't do much worse in the last year than he did in the first few.

    If they were saving America from a full extra term of him then you could see the point, but ironically it feels like he's safer if there's not much danger of that happening.

    Many non-Trump Republicans probably like having Trump in the White House, in the same way they are said to have liked Reagan and GWBush as genial front men with few ideas of their own. With Trump, they are free to write their own legislation, for which the battle is within the House and the party, not with the White House. This seems to have happened with Trump's two big bills so far on gutting Obamacare and cutting tax: both existing GOP programmes; neither with any obvious Trump stamp.

    Why would House Republicans want to throw this away? And for what? Pence might have his own ideas. It is said the GOP in the mid-1980s preferred to keep a deteriorating Reagan than Bush Sr.

    The only reason to dump Trump is if he costs Republicans their seats and majority. Trump will continue to 2020. Beyond that, does he want to stand again? Is his heart in it and does he want to try and help Ivanka become America's first woman president?
    Both Clinton and Obama saw their party lose control of the House in their first mid terms and were re elected
    That's not quite the same thing but draws attention to another American phenomenon the Democrats appeared to be backing away from. Ever since Newt Gingrich invented the tactic of shutting down the government, the American public has tended to side with the (usually Democrat) president over the (Republican, and actually Tea Party) House.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,135

    I see the BBC is still at the early stages of going cold turkey for its Kipper addiction (apologies for the food mash up) - Bolton on Today between 7-8am then Farage on the 8-9am slot. Who needs a 'front bench' when you've got Beeb promotions on your side?

    Well, the story is amusing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486

    Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

    The question is when? Will he wait, or is there a tide in the affairs of man that is at flood?
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,519
    Very much looking forward to the FISA memo coming out. If you know where to look, it links into a number of past and present parliamentary members here. Did anyone watch millionaires ex wives club last Wednesday night? I know a few of the people who were on it.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,020

    Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

    More like if the PM does act now, Boris will bring her down; if she laughs it off, she lives to fight another day.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,486
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment.
    The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
    If NS is finally to be admitted to be not a pot for working age benefits and pensions, then it is time to stop exempting people beyond retirement age.
  • HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash

    Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,519
    Politics is like an iceberg in this country right now. The eighth that everyone can see in the open is discussed ad nauseam on here. As for the other seven eighths. ........
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,944

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    As I keep on saying McDonnell's 5 billion and Boris's 5 billion is playing to the gallery and is wholly dishonest. The question both parties have to answer is where they find the 30 billion a year needed not the petty cash

    Hammond smacked Boris down with consumate ease this morning
    Indeed. If you want extra money, then say how and where it's coming from. At least then we can have a honest choice and discussion.

  • Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

    I think it is obvious that some will be looking to take advantage of TM's problems, most of her own making, but neither of those two will get my vote. (and I have one)
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited January 23
    Good morning all.

    I echo some other posters today; given our deficit is still more than £30 billion p.a., what taxes are going to be raised in order to fund the NHS (in our time honoured tradition of just throwing money at the problem)?

    Unusually, I also agree with Soubry. Johnson should be sacked.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,425
    Sean_F said:

    WRT capitalism's failings, there are too many large companies whose directors believe in ripping people off. Ripping off customers, employees, shareholders, and pensioners. A case in point is Barclays' attempt to transfer its pension fund to its profitable, but risky, investment bank, instead of it's profitable, and secure, retail bank.

    The issue is they have a very narrow interpretation of their job: shareholder interest not stakeholder interest

    From that perspective it makes sense (encumber the less valuable income stream). From a stakeholder perspective it’s outrageous
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 12,962
    HYUFD said:



    The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.

    You keep saying this and a few of us keep pointing out to you that NI raises just over half that which is spent on the state pension, contributory JSA and the NHS etc. Hypothecation would cut spending dramatically not increase it.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 702
    I think we could be looking at the end of May this year. She is hopelessly weak, lacks any sort of vision required to unite the country and is failing to tackle key issues such as the NHS or military spending. Both her and Hammond seem to say the same things expecting different results.

    There does seem to be some sort of coordinated move. Boris is on manoeuvres as usual but at keast he understands that if they don't get a grip on the NHS as an issue, it'll sink them long tern
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,742

    Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

    I think it is obvious that some will be looking to take advantage of TM's problems, most of her own making, but neither of those two will get my vote. (and I have one)
    Counts for more in the new slimline Tory party.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,742
    Sean_F said:

    I see the BBC is still at the early stages of going cold turkey for its Kipper addiction (apologies for the food mash up) - Bolton on Today between 7-8am then Farage on the 8-9am slot. Who needs a 'front bench' when you've got Beeb promotions on your side?

    Well, the story is amusing.
    I'm not keen on Kippers, but should a man be sacked for what his girlfriend thinks?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,040
    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    I echo some other posters today; given our deficit is still more than £30 billion p.a., what taxes are going to be raised in order to fund the NHS (in our time honoured tradition of just throwing money at the problem)?

    Unusually, I also agree with Soubry. Johnson should be sacked.

    If i could choose:
    Land value tax, introduce overall limit for ISA at say 100k, slash pensions tax relief, raise corporation tax as Labour planned if not more, raise capital gains tax.
    Obviously clamp down more on tax avoidance which should be a no brainier for all parties.
    Internationally throw full weight behind going after tax havens including the British ones.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    The greedy might judge now to be a good moment to bet against Donald Trump's survival. There's more coming down the track, so much is clear, and when it pulls into the station we can expect the price on his departing early to fall sharply.

    I'm not playing that game but others might wish to.

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment. Harmonising the NI threshold with the personal tax allowance at the same time would avoid hitting the lowest paid (or pensioned) and the extra income from ex-NI on savings (ex-ISA), investment and private pension income would raise a fair bit more for the NHS
    It would - it's absurd that those who have an unearned income of, say, £30k pay less tax than those in work with the same income. But any proposal to do it would cause howls of opposition from middle- and higher-income pensioners.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited January 23
    Let's toss some numbers in (from the last IFS briefing note). The big three revenue raisers are income tax, national insurance and VAT. They bring in £182, £126 and £120 billion respectively and account for ~60% of all taxes.

    As I posted yesterday, to match Japan (#2 in the OECD), we'd need to give the NHS an additional ~£24 billion, or ~£22 billion if we want to match Germany.

    We spend around £350 billion on pensions, health and welfare.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,694
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    What might happen? Events, dear boy!

    And if there is one thing that Trump is prone to, it is events.

    For me the 2020 election is too far off for anything more than token bets. I have quite a bit of my stake money tied up in next leadership contests, that show no sign of resolution.

    Boris is an egotistic buffoon, but right about the NHS (though characteristically over hyped). No elective surgery requiring GA for 6 weeks, our extremely good breast cancer unit is now a respiratory ward, and planning blight on any sort of capital project.

    Money could be found if there was a will, but the lead times in terms of building and staff training are such that the rot cannot stop quickly. Across a wide variety of roles we simply cannot appoint or retain staff of the right calibre.
    The question is not so much whether the money could be found now (though it could and should) but how the demographic bomb is going to be funded. On that no political party has made anything approaching a coherent suggestion.
    And any suggestions that have been made have been immediately shot down in perjorative language such as “Dementia Tax” by political opponents.

    What is clear is that he burden needs to fall more on those demographics affected, it’s politically impossible to increase working-age income taxes high enough to fund health and social care for the rapidly increasing numbers in retirement.
    There is a majority who support higher national insurance to pay for additional funds for the NHS and social care, Labour may well increase income tax too to pay for it. The NHS also needs to be more efficient and more of those who can afford it encouraged to take out private health insurance
    The fairest would be to merge NI and Income Tax such that what used to be NI is levied on all income and not just that from employment.
    The opposite in my view, ensure NI is restored to its original purpose and hypothecated to fund the state pension, contributory JSA and any increase in funds for the NHS and social care with income tax funding current NHS and social care spending and most of any increase in other government departments.
    But NI would need to be reformed such that pension income is also subject to it. It’s easy to conduct a poll that suggests others will pay for things. Income tax is much broader and also encompasses non-employment income.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,789

    I think we could be looking at the end of May this year. She is hopelessly weak, lacks any sort of vision required to unite the country and is failing to tackle key issues such as the NHS or military spending. Both her and Hammond seem to say the same things expecting different results.

    There does seem to be some sort of coordinated move. Boris is on manoeuvres as usual but at keast he understands that if they don't get a grip on the NHS as an issue, it'll sink them long tern

    It's not a co-ordinated move: it's ministers reacting to each others moves. They're aware that the music might stop and they want to be in the right place in the game if it does.

    FWIW, I still expect May to see the year out. The Party is polling 40%, the local elections are likely to be OK outside London, and Brexit still needs managing - and taking another two months out would be an absurd indulgence and cause far more division than it would resolve.

    Summer 2019.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited January 23
    rkrkrk said:

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    I echo some other posters today; given our deficit is still more than £30 billion p.a., what taxes are going to be raised in order to fund the NHS (in our time honoured tradition of just throwing money at the problem)?

    Unusually, I also agree with Soubry. Johnson should be sacked.

    If i could choose:
    Land value tax, introduce overall limit for ISA at say 100k, slash pensions tax relief, raise corporation tax as Labour planned if not more, raise capital gains tax.
    Obviously clamp down more on tax avoidance which should be a no brainier for all parties.
    Internationally throw full weight behind going after tax havens including the British ones.
    The issue with your idea is corporation tax raises around £47 billion p.a. It's a relative tiddler, accounting for about 6% of government revenue.

    I have no idea how an LVT would work. While I see some utility in it, it would be quite difficult politically, don't you think?

    It's unpalatable, but in my view we're going to have to raise general taxation in some fashion, permed from income tax, NI or VAT. I do like the idea of taxing middle and high income pensioners more (and I say that as one of them!).
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,552
    Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.

    Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.

    I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,479

    Jonathan said:

    With Williamson yesterday and Boris today in a bidding war, has the Tory leadership contest begun?

    More like if the PM does act now, Boris will bring her down; if she laughs it off, she lives to fight another day.
    Perhaps Johnson is planning to resign this time.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,434
    Fenster said:

    Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.

    Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.

    I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.

    Real or nominal?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,443
    Sean_F said:

    I see the BBC is still at the early stages of going cold turkey for its Kipper addiction (apologies for the food mash up) - Bolton on Today between 7-8am then Farage on the 8-9am slot. Who needs a 'front bench' when you've got Beeb promotions on your side?

    Well, the story is amusing.
    The tabloids should be well up to covering the 'amusing' side of it. Otoh a supposedly serious news programme spending substantial time bumming up Farage and his ambitions doesn't seem especially amusing.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,723
    Fenster said:

    Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.

    Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.

    I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.

    Wheras the NHS income of a typical DGH has flatlined since 2010/

    My local hospital gets 3% more NHS cash for a 64% increase in throughput in the last 8 years.

    It now resorts to very dodgy accountancy to try to meet "control totals"
  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,552
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Fenster said:

    Next year the NHS budget will be exactly double what it was in 2001.

    Like my first boss told me when I was 17: the more you earn, the more you'll need.

    I reckon our NHS system is the best in the world but it is a victim of unreasonable public expectations and years of being a political football.

    Real or nominal?
    I'm not sure what that means, but it was £74bn in 2001 and will be £148bn next year.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,478
    Tories need to stake out clear policy positions.
    I hope Johnson gets the better of Hammond.
This discussion has been closed.