Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pennsylvania election almost a dead heat and hard to see h

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 14 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pennsylvania election almost a dead heat and hard to see how a clear result tonight

As expected the special election in Pennsylvania has been extraordinarily tight and as can be seen from the New York Times table above this is a virtual dead heat. At the moment, 0300GMT, about 11000 absentee ballots have still to be counted and it is hard to see how we can get a result overnight.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    Dem lead 847 including Allegheny absentee ballots.

    Absentee ballots still to come from 3 other Counties.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    3,200 absentee ballots still to be counted.

    Plus two precincts in Westmoreland.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    edited March 14
    MikeL said:

    3,200 absentee ballots still to be counted.

    Plus two precincts in Westmoreland.

    Those 3,200 absentee ballots are in the three Republican counties?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 738
    @Nate_Cohn
    5m5 minutes ago
    .@DecisionDeskHQ says last two Westmoreland precincts are Latrobe2 and NLigonier. Saccone could reasonably hope for net-200 there, brings race down to D+650
    CNN says there are 3206 absentees outstanding in GOP counties. Saccone would need to win those by 20. He didn't on eday.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    Andrew said:

    @Nate_Cohn
    5m5 minutes ago
    .@DecisionDeskHQ says last two Westmoreland precincts are Latrobe2 and NLigonier. Saccone could reasonably hope for net-200 there, brings race down to D+650
    CNN says there are 3206 absentees outstanding in GOP counties. Saccone would need to win those by 20. He didn't on eday.

    If they break 55/45 that puts the lead at around 300 votes.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    Westmoreland + Washington combined is 56:44 (with 2 precincts to come).

    If 3206 absentees split the same that would be Rep +385

    So last two Westmoreland precincts are absolutely key.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 738
    edited March 14
    Also worth noting Cohn's next tweet, that 3206 was the number mailed out, not the number that were actually cast. How many absentees get forgotten about? A quarter maybe? Less?

    EDIT: mr google says....
    The Measure of American Elections - Page 129 - Google Books Result
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107066670
    "The average rate of unreturned ballots among mail ballots sent is: absentee voting 7.7 percent, vote-by-mail 8.5 percent, and permanent vote-by-mail 15.7"
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,326
    Physicist Stephen Hawking dies aged 76
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 28,326
    Labour leader, his spin doctor and their spinless defence of Russia

    Ten times that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his spin chief Seumas Milne stood with Russia:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5497777/Jeremy-Corbyn-condemned-long-history-Moscow-support.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,588

    Physicist Stephen Hawking dies aged 76

    RIP. What a genius intellect.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150
    Wakes up, checks Betfair, sees odds of 1.02 and 4, in a two horse race, goes back to bed...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    RIP Stephen Hawking.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    edited March 14
    MikeL said:

    Westmoreland + Washington combined is 56:44 (with 2 precincts to come).

    If 3206 absentees split the same that would be Rep +385

    So last two Westmoreland precincts are absolutely key.

    Those two have brought the margin down to 579.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    RIP Stephen Hawking.
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 139
    What has this got to do with Brexit?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    RIP Stephen Hawking.

    His book A Brief History of Time became an unlikely best-seller although it is unclear how many people actually managed to get to the end of it.

    I remember trying to follow it....and not entirely succeeding!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15555565
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,588
    Penddu said:

    What has this got to do with Brexit?

    I'm more interested in what it has to do with pineapple on pizza... :D
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,663
    Penddu said:

    What has this got to do with Brexit?

    Hawking dying means we're -1 Remainer for the second referendum. Pretty sure Ken Dood was a Leaver though so we're all square.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 843

    Physicist Stephen Hawking dies aged 76

    RIP, a true loss.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150

    Physicist Stephen Hawking dies aged 76

    Not a bad innings from someone who was told they had two years left to live aged only 21. Luckily for all of us he had a great scientific career despite his illnesses.
    Rest in peace, in the stars.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154
    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    There's more.......



    Treasury strike, anyone?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    edited March 14
    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    the vote ended up being so close that an official victor won’t be declared until at least Wednesday.

    But even if Saccone is able to make up the vote deficit (unlikely, according to the number crunchers) or the close final tally prompts a recount or a legal challenge, the fact will remain that a safe Republican district, having voted for the President by nineteen points less than two years ago, appears to have effectively flipped.


    https://www.newyorker.com/current/pennsylvania-special-election#EricLach57d2cf
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,588

    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    the vote ended up being so close that an official victor won’t be declared until at least Wednesday.

    But even if Saccone is able to make up the vote deficit (unlikely, according to the number crunchers) or the close final tally prompts a recount or a legal challenge, the fact will remain that a safe Republican district, having voted for the President by nineteen points less than two years ago, appears to have effectively flipped.


    https://www.newyorker.com/current/pennsylvania-special-election#EricLach57d2cf
    it's a by-election, don't governing parties always do worse?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154

    There's more.......



    Treasury strike, anyone?

    I really thought Trump was bluffing on all this stuff.
    Looks like I was wrong.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150
    edited March 14

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    edited March 14
    RCP - 100% reporting

    Lamb (D) 113,111 .. Saccone (R) 112,532
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,252
    OT Stephen Hawking has died.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43396008
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Sandpit said:

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
    That's always been China's trump card over the US.

    It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.

    If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,513
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    the vote ended up being so close that an official victor won’t be declared until at least Wednesday.

    But even if Saccone is able to make up the vote deficit (unlikely, according to the number crunchers) or the close final tally prompts a recount or a legal challenge, the fact will remain that a safe Republican district, having voted for the President by nineteen points less than two years ago, appears to have effectively flipped.


    https://www.newyorker.com/current/pennsylvania-special-election#EricLach57d2cf
    it's a by-election, don't governing parties always do worse?
    No. Just over year ago the governing Conservative Party, which at the time had a majority, gained a seat from Labour in a by-election at Copeland
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,588

    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    the vote ended up being so close that an official victor won’t be declared until at least Wednesday.

    But even if Saccone is able to make up the vote deficit (unlikely, according to the number crunchers) or the close final tally prompts a recount or a legal challenge, the fact will remain that a safe Republican district, having voted for the President by nineteen points less than two years ago, appears to have effectively flipped.


    https://www.newyorker.com/current/pennsylvania-special-election#EricLach57d2cf
    it's a by-election, don't governing parties always do worse?
    No. Just over year ago the governing Conservative Party, which at the time had a majority, gained a seat from Labour in a by-election at Copeland
    Well, most of the time... :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    RobD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    the vote ended up being so close that an official victor won’t be declared until at least Wednesday.

    But even if Saccone is able to make up the vote deficit (unlikely, according to the number crunchers) or the close final tally prompts a recount or a legal challenge, the fact will remain that a safe Republican district, having voted for the President by nineteen points less than two years ago, appears to have effectively flipped.


    https://www.newyorker.com/current/pennsylvania-special-election#EricLach57d2cf
    it's a by-election, don't governing parties always do worse?
    Yes, albeit the US doesn't have the same tradition we do. Historically, special elections in uncompetitive seats have often been uncontested.

    The real lesson from this - to my mind - is that the Democrats are fired up.

    Whether that will be enough, with the US economy growing nicely, is another matter altogether.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    edited March 14
    JackW said:

    RCP - 100% reporting

    Lamb (D) 113,111 .. Saccone (R) 112,532

    Still waiting for absentee ballots from three GOP counties AFAIK. But there probably won't be quite enough votes to overturn Lamb's lead and he'll likely win by about 200 to 300 votes.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    rkrkrk said:

    So who won? Conflicting news reports about how close it was.
    Turnout seems to be up compared to last time which is good news for Dems more generally right?

    We don't have a final result yet.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,589

    OT Stephen Hawking has died.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43396008

    Yep, just woke up to see this.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617
    Coming from Mr Wiseman later today......

    https://www.rt.com/news/421200-uk-novichok-agent-allegations/

    Curiously omits 'they did it before' as a reason for suspecting Russia....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412

    Coming from Mr Wiseman later today......

    https://www.rt.com/news/421200-uk-novichok-agent-allegations/

    Curiously omits 'they did it before' as a reason for suspecting Russia....

    But they mentioned motive and opportunity, right?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,097
    rcs1000 said:

    Coming from Mr Wiseman later today......

    https://www.rt.com/news/421200-uk-novichok-agent-allegations/

    Curiously omits 'they did it before' as a reason for suspecting Russia....

    But they mentioned motive and opportunity, right?
    I see you’ve gone undercover with a new avatar. Wise.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    Guardian says Dems are claiming victory.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited March 14
    RIP Stephen Hawking.

    When my brother was at Cambridge in the eighties, Hawking was notorious for his erratic wheelchair driving. He would shoot out of entrances into a stream of cycles who would have to take evasive action. Politically active too. He gave the medical lecture below six months ago. A life well lived.

    https://videos.rsm.ac.uk/video/professor-stephen-hawking---talk-nhs-keynote-lecture
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521
    Surely there will have to be a recount with such a close race?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    rcs1000 said:

    Coming from Mr Wiseman later today......

    https://www.rt.com/news/421200-uk-novichok-agent-allegations/

    Curiously omits 'they did it before' as a reason for suspecting Russia....

    But they mentioned motive and opportunity, right?
    I see you’ve gone undercover with a new avatar. Wise.
    Fake news. Radiohead have never poisoned the airwaves!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
    That's always been China's trump card over the US.

    It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.

    If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
    Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.

    The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
    That's always been China's trump card over the US.

    It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.

    If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
    Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.

    The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
    Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367

    RIP Stephen Hawking.

    His book A Brief History of Time became an unlikely best-seller although it is unclear how many people actually managed to get to the end of it.

    I remember trying to follow it....and not entirely succeeding!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15555565
    It was all reasonably straightforward until the last couple of chapters where it suddenly went up 9 or 10 levels into string theory and multidimensional space and you got some idea of what he was really working on.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    You have to wonder whether the farcical firing of Tillerson yesterday lost this election for Saccone. Must have been a few folks who thought it the last straw in defending Trump.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    It looks like it will lose as a bet, but backing the odds against candidate in a polling dead heat still looks sound.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367

    You have to wonder whether the farcical firing of Tillerson yesterday lost this election for Saccone. Must have been a few folks who thought it the last straw in defending Trump.

    Yes, in such a close race that really could not have helped. Just needed a few hundred who were sufficiently demotivated not to bother. Still a very, very strong swing for the Dems though. The GOP is going to be increasingly nervous about November.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,255

    Surely there will have to be a recount with such a close race?

    The voting is all electronic (other than the 3000 absentee ballots) so not much to recount
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,255

    It looks like it will lose as a bet, but backing the odds against candidate in a polling dead heat still looks sound.

    Agreed - a value loser
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517
    Morning all

    Cheltenham Day 2

    1.30 Samcro
    2.10 Presenting Percy
    2.50 Voix Du Reve
    3.30 Altior
    4.10 The Last Samuri
    4.50 Esprit de Somoza
    5.30 Rhinestone
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    More evidence (after JCB taking on 600 new staff to keep up with unprecedented demand) that the alleged collapse in construction may not be entirely right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43397797
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,799
    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....

    She probably also needs to grasp the nettle of oligarch donations to the Conservative Party. It may well be that a few Russian oligarchs have surmised that their best shot of hurting Putin is by supporting the Conservatives. And when you look at Corbyn the Craven, you'd have to think that was a decent assessment. But it allows him an easy distraction without being forced to address the true issues around Putin and his conflicted loyalties.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 583
    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Personally, I would turn the other cheek and not up the ante. The attack was gruesome, but Skripal was a traitor and could hardly be surprised that he was targeted. Many other countries (including the UK) have previously undertaken covert targeted assassinations of those they consider to be state enemies. Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    Of much greater concern is the current appalling state of affairs regarding the economy, relative to all other major countries, which will have significant consequences for the whole population, not just for one or two individuals. The Skripal affair is a convenient distraction for the current shambles that constitutes the Westminster administration.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
    That's always been China's trump card over the US.

    It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.

    If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
    Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.

    The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
    Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
    Most likely yes. The last time steel tariffs were imposed by the US, the local producers couldn’t keep up so the price of local steel rose to almost match the price of the imported steel with the tariffs. Unless there’s a lot more excess steel making capacity in the US, expect the same to happen again.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    daodao said:

    Personally, I would turn the other cheek and not up the ante. The attack was gruesome, but Skripal was a traitor and could hardly be surprised that he was targeted. Many other countries (including the UK) have previously undertaken covert targeted assassinations of those they consider to be state enemies.

    What about his daughter, the police officer and the several hundred residents of Salisbury who ave been affected by it? Are they legitimate collateral damage in your eyes?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    daodao said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Personally, I would turn the other cheek and not up the ante. The attack was gruesome, but Skripal was a traitor and could hardly be surprised that he was targeted. Many other countries (including the UK) have previously undertaken covert targeted assassinations of those they consider to be state enemies. Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    Of much greater concern is the current appalling state of affairs regarding the economy, relative to all other major countries, which will have significant consequences for the whole population, not just for one or two individuals. The Skripal affair is a convenient distraction for the current shambles that constitutes the Westminster administration.
    Skripal was traded in a spy swap

    Are you saying that Russia doesn’t stick to it’s agreements?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,255
    110 Republican Congressional districts voted for Trump by less than the margin inPA18. Even if the Dems only win a third of those they’ll easily take the House.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
  • MJWMJW Posts: 317
    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Indeed. Usually there's both an up and a downside to Trump's moments of madness or the latest revelation. For every moderate, sensible Republican blanching at his nonsense, there'll be someone galvanised by the outrage to defend him. It's difficult to see that with the chaotic firing of a Secretary of State though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    MJW said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Indeed. Usually there's both an up and a downside to Trump's moments of madness or the latest revelation. For every moderate, sensible Republican blanching at his nonsense, there'll be someone galvanised by the outrage to defend him. It's difficult to see that with the chaotic firing of a Secretary of State though.
    They thought they were electing a Trump.

    Turns out they've elected the Joker.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    daodao said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Personally, I would turn the other cheek and not up the ante. The attack was gruesome, but Skripal was a traitor and could hardly be surprised that he was targeted. Many other countries (including the UK) have previously undertaken covert targeted assassinations of those they consider to be state enemies. Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    Of much greater concern is the current appalling state of affairs regarding the economy, relative to all other major countries, which will have significant consequences for the whole population, not just for one or two individuals. The Skripal affair is a convenient distraction for the current shambles that constitutes the Westminster administration.
    And the policeman? And the people of Salisbury exposed to this? We need to respond with vigour. Russia is of minimal importance to us other than as a source of funds that is disgracefully laundered in London.

    On the economy we are about to have our 8th consecutive year of growth, we have full employment, we have low and falling inflation, we have hints of a fall in our trade deficit at last, we have the longest period of growth of manufacturing in more than 40 years, we have eliminated the current spending deficit, we have the national debt falling as a share of GDP, what exactly do you find so appalling?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Daodao, Skripal came here as part of a prisoner exchange with Russia. If they're going to subsequently murder men released as part of such schemes, they have dubious value at best.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,255
    The
    daodao said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    Personally, I would turn the other cheek and not up the ante. The attack was gruesome, but Skripal was a traitor and could hardly be surprised that he was targeted. Many other countries (including the UK) have previously undertaken covert targeted assassinations of those they consider to be state enemies. Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.
    Turn the other cheek? Seriously? Someone attempted murder in broad daylight using a lethal nerve agent that could have killed scores of others, and we should ignore it because of Brexit?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,097
    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
    Yes, the Labour amendment allowing the seizure of dubious assets is in the same direction. I think there would be pretty strong bipartisan support for a move on oligarch wealth, and although it's arguably nice for the City to be the natural haven for hot money it can't be that significant to our GDP as a whole (or if it is, there really is something seriously wrong with us).
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 15,158

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    Nope. Try again
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 857

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    Yes. Next.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    F1: bloody nonsense. Anyway, SpreadEx also just has a rubbish championship index up rather than points:
    https://www.spreadex.com/sports/en-GB/spread-betting/Motor-Racing/m129

    Humbug!

    Ladbrokes has kindly added odds to its Winner market for Australia. I'm pushed for time, though (will be off soon) so haven't made any decisions as to whether to bet early or not.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
    Yes, the Labour amendment allowing the seizure of dubious assets is in the same direction. I think there would be pretty strong bipartisan support for a move on oligarch wealth, and although it's arguably nice for the City to be the natural haven for hot money it can't be that significant to our GDP as a whole (or if it is, there really is something seriously wrong with us).
    Would help in a small way with the housing crisis too; think of all the confiscated mansions which could be turned into blocks of flats!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,364
    edited March 14
    McDonnell has clearly understood that the Corbyn approach to foreign policy is a serious danger to Labour. He is noticeably more robust in his criticisms of Russia, for instance. Beyond Ireland, foreign policy is of little interest to McDonnell, so he can afford to be entirely pragmatic, Blairite even. For Corbyn it is a primary concern. Keep an eye on this one.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    Nope. Try again
    Good morning all.

    I don't know Richard, Putin, like Trump, won't last forever. We used to be in the Triple Entente with Russia, and they were our allies in both world wars. Perhaps we should substitute Turkey for France and reconstitute a 21st century version. Said with tongue firmly in cheek ;).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,521

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
    Yes, the Labour amendment allowing the seizure of dubious assets is in the same direction. I think there would be pretty strong bipartisan support for a move on oligarch wealth, and although it's arguably nice for the City to be the natural haven for hot money it can't be that significant to our GDP as a whole (or if it is, there really is something seriously wrong with us).
    You obviously haven't studied Gordon Brown.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    RIP Stephen Hawking who made a great contribution to Physics and understanding our origins while dealing with his motor neurons disease
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,330

    It looks like it will lose as a bet, but backing the odds against candidate in a polling dead heat still looks sound.

    Still stings a bit :(
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    edited March 14

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
    You have proven before that when any leaver, hard or soft, does acknowledge what you say you want them to acknowledge re downsides (of which you are right there certainly are some, that's why it was a difficult balance for plenty to grapple with), that you say it is not enough. So I don't believe you.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
    Yes, the Labour amendment allowing the seizure of dubious assets is in the same direction. I think there would be pretty strong bipartisan support for a move on oligarch wealth, and although it's arguably nice for the City to be the natural haven for hot money it can't be that significant to our GDP as a whole (or if it is, there really is something seriously wrong with us).
    Wouldn’t the most effective move against Russia be to take over direct rule of the British-controlled tax havens and clamp down on Russian interests there?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear...
    Just Putin asking for data to help refine assassination techniques for next time around; ought to be treated with the contempt it deserves.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Lamb has claimed victory in the PA 18 special election even though his victory margin looks razor thin.

    Nonetheless for a Democrat to win what in normal circumstances should be a safe Republican district suggests a potential Democratic tidal wave in the midterms and that the Republicans will lose the House and of they have a really bad night the Senate too
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
    You have proven before that when any leaver, hard or soft, does acknowledge what you say you want them to acknowledge re downsides (of which you are right there certainly are some, that's why it was a difficult balance for plenty to grapple with), that you say it is not enough. So I don't believe you.
    I see. The Brexit Pollyannas aren’t ready to believe the evidence as it unfolds. Faith-based policymaking continues.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,364

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.

    In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150

    F1: bloody nonsense. Anyway, SpreadEx also just has a rubbish championship index up rather than points:
    https://www.spreadex.com/sports/en-GB/spread-betting/Motor-Racing/m129

    Humbug!

    Ladbrokes has kindly added odds to its Winner market for Australia. I'm pushed for time, though (will be off soon) so haven't made any decisions as to whether to bet early or not.

    That’s crap. Driver and team points spreads please!!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    Pulpstar said:

    It looks like it will lose as a bet, but backing the odds against candidate in a polling dead heat still looks sound.

    Still stings a bit :(
    I won in the past on a party getting less than 1.5% when it tallied 1.49%. It’s swings and roundabouts.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,154

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Is Theresa May giving her "no such undertaking" update to the House after PMQs?

    Yes, although the consequences of Russia asking for a sample etc yesterday seem unclear. I would have thought whether she goes full barrel or not will very much depend on what we have managed to line up with allies. And given the utter chaos in the US she may be struggling to get them on board in time despite the call yesterday.
    The risk is she doesn't say much and looks a bit ineffective - because the stuff that will hurt Russia is the secret stuff. But she can't really stand up and say "And Mr. Putin should be very afraid of our Secret Stuff. Oh yes! We've unleashed the Accountants of Doom, to get medieval on their asses...." Even though surreptiously grabbing a few billions from the regime's proceeds of crime might be a satisfying way to fund GCHQ.....
    Richard Murphy - formerly close to Corbyn - is advising this to crack down on the Russians... May has form for adopting Labour policies - maybe she'll do this?

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/13/to-russia-with-love/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+org/lWWh+(Tax+Research+UK+2)
    Yes, the Labour amendment allowing the seizure of dubious assets is in the same direction. I think there would be pretty strong bipartisan support for a move on oligarch wealth, and although it's arguably nice for the City to be the natural haven for hot money it can't be that significant to our GDP as a whole (or if it is, there really is something seriously wrong with us).
    Wouldn’t the most effective move against Russia be to take over direct rule of the British-controlled tax havens and clamp down on Russian interests there?
    Sounds good to me.
    May could prove me wrong but I think it's unlikely that decisive action will come from the Tories.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.

    In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.

    Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.

    Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.
    Exocet.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150

    McDonnell has clearly understood that the Corbyn approach to foreign policy is a serious danger to Labour. He is noticeably more robust in his criticisms of Russia, for instance. Beyond Ireland, foreign policy is of little interest to McDonnell, so he can afford to be entirely pragmatic, Blairite even. For Corbyn it is a primary concern. Keep an eye on this one.

    Yes indeed, there’s definitely signs of a disagreement between them over the Russian affair. McD knows how bad it looks to be even supporting by omission an assassination with chemical weapons on British soil
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,020
    On reflection, while I don't believe Mr Meeks' faux reasonableness re Brexit given past actions, I didn't need to say that I could have just ignored the point, so I apologise to others for bringing it up and to him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,150

    Pulpstar said:

    It looks like it will lose as a bet, but backing the odds against candidate in a polling dead heat still looks sound.

    Still stings a bit :(
    I won in the past on a party getting less than 1.5% when it tallied 1.49%. It’s swings and roundabouts.
    You’re right, it is always a good bet to be on the longer odds side of a dead heat, even if it doesn’t come off.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,364
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.

    In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests. The way it is being pursued may well do. The assumption on the right that the US would be a steadfast reliable ally, for example, has been shown to be completely wrong. Putin clearly understands the geopolitical realities of Brexit far better than Boris Johnson.

    Hillary Clinton and Obama outright opposed Brexit unlike Trump.

    Had Hillary won the UK would certainly have been 'back of the queue' behind the EU for any FTA

    When do you predict the UK will sign an FTA with the US?

    Yes, like Putin Trump backed Brexit. Funny that.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 19,097

    kle4 said:

    daodao said:

    Post-Brexit, the UK may need support from Russia in many spheres and will have a common interest in the European sphere in restricting the overweening ambitions of the EU.

    To the extent that Brexit creates common interests with the Putin regime, doesn't it prove that Brexit is against the national interests of the UK?
    You'd conclude that no matter what, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
    It would be nice if some of the more splenetic Leavers railing about Russia would acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Brexit makes the process of corralling others into useful action appreciably less likely.

    They don’t need to disavow Brexit, but they do need to acknowledge it has downsides and this is one.

    In and of itself Brexit does not damage British interests.
    Brexit only really makes sense if the EU ceases to exist. That's why it means our interests will tend to align with Russia's for as long as we are pursuing it.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,364
    German exports to the UK fall 2%, rise 5% in the rest of the world. Britain now Germany’s fifth biggest export destination, was previously third.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-deals-blow-to-german-trade-r2f3gn62b
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,651
    Dura_Ace said:

    Penddu said:

    What has this got to do with Brexit?

    Hawking dying means we're -1 Remainer for the second referendum. Pretty sure Ken Dood was a Leaver though so we're all square.
    They are both leavers now, as E. J. Thribb might say.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 845
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    There's more.......

    ttps://twitter.com/Reuters/status/973785899719970816

    Treasury strike, anyone?

    Treasury strike highly likely I’d have thought, Trump appears determined to start a trade war with China.
    That's always been China's trump card over the US.

    It doesn't need to do much, maybe fail to roll over at an auction or two (and don't forget that China's not the only large holder of Treasuries who's been targeted), and suddenly the cost of US debt service is rising.

    If they were going to be "cute" about it, maybe concentrate on simply not rolling over short term debt, as near term rates determine the cost of funding for a lot of US businesses, and homeowners.
    Indeed, and with the massive amount of US debt out there it only needs a small amount of rollover not done to see the rate start ticking up.

    The other option is that the US start using the huge amount of repatriated money to buy it up themselves. With all that cash sloshing around, it’s only a matter of time before interest rates rise to keep check on inflation anyway.
    Presumably the tariffs themselves will drive inflation.
    It's almost the point of tariffs - to make certain things more expensive.
    The idea being that your local production is either more expensive or produces inferior quality, so, given a free choice, consumers opt for the non-local production (being either cheaper for the same quality, or the same price for better quality).

    If you artificially increase the prices of the non-local production (impose tariffs on it), then consumers have to pay that extra for the local production or pay even more for the non-local production. It does mean that the consumers effectively take an income cut and that's funnelled to the local producers. It also reduces overall economic activity to some degree (the whatever-it-is getting more expensive means less of it is used) and hurts economic activity in the overseas producers as well.

    But the very specific group of the local producers of that thing do better (at the cost of everyone else).
This discussion has been closed.