Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg moves to a 9% chance on Betfair for the Democratic n

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg moves to a 9% chance on Betfair for the Democratic nomination

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    First. Like Biden.

    In the end.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    edited January 2020
    Second like Trump in the popular vote
  • Evening assorted weirdos....
  • Evening assorted weirdos....

    Evening, misfit!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Evening assorted weirdos....

    I read Computer Science, so I am in with a chance with the Dom.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Greetings, allsorts.
  • Evening assorted weirdos....

    I read Computer Science, so I am in with a chance with the Dom.
    You will have to compete with Uri Geller for a job.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    FPT
    Just to add to the sense of farce, to all intents and purposes it's already too late. With over 40% of those eligible now having made a nomination, does Gardiner (or McCluskey) realise that he'll need about 17% of those yet to make a nomination to back him unless other candidates withdraw?

    The procedural rules seem clear that once submitted, a nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate nominated has withdrawn:

    "All nominations will remain valid once submitted unless the
    nomination is formally withdrawn (if the nominated candidate has
    withdrawn in writing to the General Secretary). MPs and MEPs who
    nominated a candidate who withdraws or is disqualified will be entitled
    to submit a further nomination prior to the deadline for PLP and EPLP
    nominations. Nomination forms will be re-issued to affected MPs and
    MEPs."
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Evening assorted weirdos....

    I read Computer Science, so I am in with a chance with the Dom.
    You will have to compete with Uri Geller for a job.
    :lol:

    I give up!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    edited January 2020
    Is this the same Erasmus where non-EU members Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Serbia and Turkey participate?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Good news that Nigel Evans has got his old job back.

    He had to resign when he was charged a few years ago; Eleanor Laing took his place and then when Evans was acquitted he'd lost his job (and substantial salary) for no reason.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Haileybury has already had one PM (Attlee); could Barry Gardiner make it two?
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,178
    edited January 2020
    Bloombergs intervention could be a massive headache for the Democrats. He is likely to lose but if he takes any encouragement from it to run as a 3rd party candidate he is going to take the froth off the Democrat vote.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Yokes said:

    Bloombergs intervention could be a massive headache for the Democrats. He is likely to lose but if he takes any encouragement from it to run as a 3rd party candidate he is going to take the froth off the Democrat vote.

    Yep. What an idiot.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2020
    Seems an unnecessary mess. If he wants his own life and to be his own man theres no need to talk of splitting time between places or still doing some duties. Just go whole hog and depart - clearly hes through worrying about his familys disapproval so just go for it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Yokes said:

    Bloombergs intervention could be a massive headache for the Democrats. He is likely to lose but if he takes any encouragement from it to run as a 3rd party candidate he is going to take the froth off the Democrat vote.

    Yep. What an idiot.
    The Ralph Nader for our times, giving us four more years of Trump.....
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Is this the same Erasmus where non-EU members Norway, Serbia and Turkey participate?
    And Switzerland. And North Macedonia. As full members.

    And as partner countries Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Territory of Ukraine, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia.

    Even Russia.

    Not merely do you not have to be in the EU, you don't even have to be in Europe.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,043
    edited January 2020
    There is more chance in Gerry Adams coming the next leader of the conservative party than bloomberg winning.

    Bloomberg's chances are considerably lower than 0.1%.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2020
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    His people tell him he can and he believes them? People believe a lot of odd things even if very sharp on other matters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    kle4 said:

    Seems an unnecessary mess. If he wants his own life and to be his own man theres no need to talk of splitting time between places or still doing some duties. Just go whole hog and depart - clearly hes through worrying about his familys disapproval so just go for it.
    Well that's what will have to happen in practice? The idea that they live in US and UK and still work for the Queen in some way is for the birds.

    They'll have to go and go for good. Which means giving up the titles, the house and the money.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,178
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    When you got money, you can have delusions. The difficulty is straightforward. Trump probably cant win unless he comes up against a total socialist. Trump's base just isn't enough as it stands BUT its pretty damn solid. The Democrat base is motivated but in order to achieve a clear victory it needs the classic swing voters. Bloomberg threatens that section of votes.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    GIN1138 said:

    kle4 said:

    Seems an unnecessary mess. If he wants his own life and to be his own man theres no need to talk of splitting time between places or still doing some duties. Just go whole hog and depart - clearly hes through worrying about his familys disapproval so just go for it.
    Well that's what will have to happen in practice? The idea that they live in US and UK and still work for the Queen in some way is for the birds.

    They'll have to go and go for good. Which means giving up the titles, the house and the money.
    So this is perhaps part of a media strategy? Profess a willingness to perform some duties, so when cut off in retaliation the Palace looks the aggressor?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Yet, why would you not discuss it all with close family before the decision? I suspect because they knew they would be talked out of it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Tell me the Dems are not stupid enough to go for Sanders.
  • Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    Charlie boy looking like a stable influence now!


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Eugenie and the others will be pissed at Harry as well then I guess.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    MikeL said:


    This royal debacle -- following on from Andrew -- should encourage all of us to take a proper look at how big a royal family we want or need & how it should be funded.

    A seriously slimmed down, much cheaper, Royal Family looks sensible to me.

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.
    Someone agrees with you:

    Prince Charles is planning to strip back the royal family to just him, William, Harry, their wives and children when he becomes king in wake of Prince Andrew's Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

    Charles, 71, wants to cut down on the number of working royals after the Duke of York was forced to step down over his links to the convicted US padeophile.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743661/Prince-Charles-cut-royal-family-just-William-Harry-wives-children-Andrew-scandal.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    kyf_100 said:
    Mmm and let's not forget how "Boris" pissed all over her too. Lied to her face to get an illegal suspension of parliament. Then forced her to put on her full regalia and deliver a long and meaningless Queens Speech in front of the watching world, carried live on prime time TV, everybody knowing it was a farce, people essentially pointing and laughing at her. She deserves much much better.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    Perhaps,,, Although to be honest they are no where near as important as Edward (was) and Wallace (might have been if she'd been allowed to stick around)

    Harry was at his most important as "the spare" but even that went out the window when William had George.

    Harry's only saving grace now is that Diana was his mother... And even that becomes more insignificant with each passing year.

    I think this is really where Harry and Meghan have gone wrong within the Firm. They seemed to think they were much important players than they actually were. Turns out with HMQ>Charles>William>George> succession keeping the Royals secure for the next seventy years H and Meg just aren't that important.

    Go. Stay. Who cares.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    MikeL said:

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.

    What about Wimbledon and the Duchess of Kent?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Judging by many of the responses to that tweet, Harry and Meghan will have plenty of support. Though for me the acceptance of them just wanting to be carefree and happy does not gel with the split their time statement. Either they want to be part of things or they want to be free to do whatever they want, and I for one am content for them to do the latter and hope they can be happy, but so long as they say they intend to undertake some royal duties the argument that they should be able to do whatever their please doesn't fully hold up, as they are themselves still claiming to want some restriction in their choices.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    I wonder what the rules will be re tax residence in the US and Canada if they are there a substantial amount of time.

    Let's hope they are fully enforced.
  • Better still, cut all the royals. Replace them​ with aliens, they'd do better.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620
    The monarchy is a generic lottery, like any other family (albeit with considerably more inbreeding). One shouldn’t be surprised when it all gets a bit EastEnders from time to time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    As a supporter of the institution, I am beginning to agree that problems are mounting up that, taken together at the time of her passing, could drastically weaken it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kinabalu said:

    kyf_100 said:
    Mmm and let's not forget how "Boris" pissed all over her too. Lied to her face to get an illegal suspension of parliament. Then forced her to put on her full regalia and deliver a long and meaningless Queens Speech in front of the watching world, carried live on prime time TV, everybody knowing it was a farce, people essentially pointing and laughing at her. She deserves much much better.
    Far from it, Boris was trying to respect the will of the people as confirmed by the general election, not abandoning his duties
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,079
    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    I am not surprised at all that Harry and Meghan have got pissed off at the way the tabloids have behaved about them. Expect more insidious British racism over the next few weeks. Lots of innuendo about how she doesn't belong etc, at least in America they have the honesty to be up front in their racism, so you can counter it.

    I hope she goes back to her career, and Harry becomes a House Husband, and that they live happily ever after. The Windsors are a pretty toxic dysfunctional family, so better off away from it.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949

    There is more chance in Gerry Adams coming the next leader of the conservative party than bloomberg winning.

    Bloomberg's chances are considerably lower than 0.1%.

    Why so low, given his non-negligible polling? He's hardly on track to win, but why so sure he can't surge from where he is?
  • Better still, cut all the royals. Replace them​ with aliens, they'd do better.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC4R1uXDaE
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    HYUFD said:

    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it

    Anybody who thinks Sanders is as awful as Trump has a cheek running for the Dem nomination.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,620

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Yet, why would you not discuss it all with close family before the decision? I suspect because they knew they would be talked out of it.
    That’s putting it rather mildly, but yes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kle4 said:

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    As a supporter of the institution, I am beginning to agree that problems are mounting up that, taken together at the time of her passing, could drastically weaken it.
    I don't think so, Charles is getting better and William and Kate have a sense of duty Meghan and Harry clearly sadly did not
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    kinabalu said:

    MikeL said:

    Indeed - look at it in reverse - if the royal family hadn't had Andrew and Harry in the first place would it have had any adverse effect?

    People only accept the royal family as it is because no other option has been presented.

    If the royal family was Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate + their kids full stop that would be quite enough.

    By full stop I mean nobody else gets anything - no titles, no patronages, no cash, no security guards, nothing.

    The Queen can of course privately fund anyone else if she wishes.

    What about Wimbledon and the Duchess of Kent?
    Given she is 86, I'd let her (and those of similar age) carry on as at present for obvious reasons.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    If he wanted to run as an independent surely running to be Dem nominee poisons him in the eyes of loads of GOP voters? Even given he is running on a 'Dems are too left-wing now' campaign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it

    Anybody who thinks Sanders is as awful as Trump has a cheek running for the Dem nomination.
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/fears-sanders-win-growing-democratic-establishment-68139327?cid=clicksource_4380645_null_headlines_hed
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Judging by many of the responses to that tweet, Harry and Meghan will have plenty of support. Though for me the acceptance of them just wanting to be carefree and happy does not gel with the split their time statement. Either they want to be part of things or they want to be free to do whatever they want, and I for one am content for them to do the latter and hope they can be happy, but so long as they say they intend to undertake some royal duties the argument that they should be able to do whatever their please doesn't fully hold up, as they are themselves still claiming to want some restriction in their choices.
    I think many people, particularly broken people, end up replaying the psychodramas of their childhood in adult life.

    It's a bit like how Peaches Geldof OD'ed on heroin just like Paula Yates. We repeat what we learn in childhood. The same dramas play out as echoes of the past.

    Larkin was right.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    If he wanted to run as an independent surely running to be Dem nominee poisons him in the eyes of loads of GOP voters? Even given he is running on a 'Dems are too left-wing now' campaign.
    No, as he wants to win Democratic coastal states like California and New York if Sanders is the Democratic nominee, he needs centrist Democrat and Independent voters for that, less so Republicans. The only Republican states he is likely to challenge in are purple ones like Florida
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    I am not surprised at all that Harry and Meghan have got pissed off at the way the tabloids have behaved about them. Expect more insidious British racism over the next few weeks. Lots of innuendo about how she doesn't belong etc, at least in America they have the honesty to be up front in their racism, so you can counter it.

    I hope she goes back to her career, and Harry becomes a House Husband, and that they live happily ever after. The Windsors are a pretty toxic dysfunctional family, so better off away from it.
    Then why are they saying they intend to undertake royal duties still? This is my problem with arguments like yours - if that is how they feel they truly should be renouncing all title and responsibilties and going off to be happy together, not fully away from the vile press but after a time it might at least lessen. Full blessings to them for that.

    But that's not what they have stated they are doing, or intending to do at least, so your hopes for them is going further than their own stated hopes, and whatever the strains they have they officially at least don't share your view on the toxicity of the family, so either you're projecting your view onto them, or their are being less than honest about what path they want to take.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Yokes said:

    When you got money, you can have delusions. The difficulty is straightforward. Trump probably cant win unless he comes up against a total socialist. Trump's base just isn't enough as it stands BUT its pretty damn solid. The Democrat base is motivated but in order to achieve a clear victory it needs the classic swing voters. Bloomberg threatens that section of votes.

    IMO Trump is going to lose regardless. But my confidence in that prediction would be a tad less if Bernie is the opponent, and a little less again if Bloomberg clutters things up as a 3rd candidate.
  • MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Even as a republican the one part of royal funding I have no problem with is their security costs. It is clearly in the countrys interest that a senior royal is not kidnapped as it leaves us open to extortion. That wouldnt change regardless of his role and is beyond his control.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    As a supporter of the institution, I am beginning to agree that problems are mounting up that, taken together at the time of her passing, could drastically weaken it.
    I don't think so, Charles is getting better and William and Kate have a sense of duty Meghan and Harry clearly sadly did not
    My concern is that it will be chipped away in the Commonwealth realms, and while I think Charles is just fine the Queen's passing (after initial sympathy support for Charles) will be less and there are not many 'good' royals left, that's one reason I assume Charles' supposed plan for a slimmed down monarchy still prominently included Harry and Meghan, as they were still assets. How many others are assets?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    kle4 said:

    His people tell him he can and he believes them? People believe a lot of odd things even if very sharp on other matters.

    True. But I don't buy this one myself. I think he's going for the Dem nomination and if he does not get it, that's it. Even if it is Sanders (which I very much doubt).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kinabalu said:

    Yokes said:

    When you got money, you can have delusions. The difficulty is straightforward. Trump probably cant win unless he comes up against a total socialist. Trump's base just isn't enough as it stands BUT its pretty damn solid. The Democrat base is motivated but in order to achieve a clear victory it needs the classic swing voters. Bloomberg threatens that section of votes.

    IMO Trump is going to lose regardless. But my confidence in that prediction would be a tad less if Bernie is the opponent, and a little less again if Bloomberg clutters things up as a 3rd candidate.
    Except that looks increasingly like what the election will be as each day goes by
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    We shouldn't comment on the private matters of another family.

    If Prince Harry wants to be the new Prince of Bel Air let him.
    After all he can come back anytime he is needed.

    The Royal Family having an American branch was always going to happen since the first colony was established, just in case we need a King Ralph:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FEsismdGWY
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    edited January 2020

    FPT

    Just to add to the sense of farce, to all intents and purposes it's already too late. With over 40% of those eligible now having made a nomination, does Gardiner (or McCluskey) realise that he'll need about 17% of those yet to make a nomination to back him unless other candidates withdraw?

    The procedural rules seem clear that once submitted, a nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate nominated has withdrawn:

    "All nominations will remain valid once submitted unless the
    nomination is formally withdrawn (if the nominated candidate has
    withdrawn in writing to the General Secretary). MPs and MEPs who
    nominated a candidate who withdraws or is disqualified will be entitled
    to submit a further nomination prior to the deadline for PLP and EPLP
    nominations. Nomination forms will be re-issued to affected MPs and
    MEPs."
    Labour had a 7% swing against them in Brent North. That is a pretty bad result for a seat that is now likely majority non white and is in London. Doesnt say much about Gardiner. In contrast Phillip's only lost about 2% in a 60% Leave seat. Pretty good actually.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited January 2020

    MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Even as a republican the one part of royal funding I have no problem with is their security costs. It is clearly in the countrys interest that a senior royal is not kidnapped as it leaves us open to extortion. That wouldnt change regardless of his role and is beyond his control.
    We're not open to extortion if he's retired from the firm. If Harry wants to not be a royal then he's not a royal. Now I don't wish him any ill, but if he's kidnapped or whatonot, the British state isn't on the hook for his ransom in the same way it would be if he was an official royal.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,151
    I doubt Gardiner will actually run, let alone get on the ballot. But the fact he is being prompted by people to run, just shows how much disquiet their is about RLB amongst the Corbyn left. She's really had an abysmal start to her campaign so far.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Even as a republican the one part of royal funding I have no problem with is their security costs. It is clearly in the countrys interest that a senior royal is not kidnapped as it leaves us open to extortion. That wouldnt change regardless of his role and is beyond his control.
    We're not open to extortion if he's retired from the firm.
    I suspect Her Majesty would feel extorted in such a situation, and even if that was in a personal capacity as he would have no state role any more, I feel like the distinction would be lost on government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Old Liz must be thinking FFS, when my husband isn't crashing cars, I have these politician knobs lying to me and dragging me down to the HoC's every other week to reopen the damn place, then my dimwit son Andrew trying to single handedly bring down the monarchy, now this.

    As a supporter of the institution, I am beginning to agree that problems are mounting up that, taken together at the time of her passing, could drastically weaken it.
    I don't think so, Charles is getting better and William and Kate have a sense of duty Meghan and Harry clearly sadly did not
    My concern is that it will be chipped away in the Commonwealth realms, and while I think Charles is just fine the Queen's passing (after initial sympathy support for Charles) will be less and there are not many 'good' royals left, that's one reason I assume Charles' supposed plan for a slimmed down monarchy still prominently included Harry and Meghan, as they were still assets. How many others are assets?
    Meghan was not that much of an asset, though she did make the royal family multi ethnic.

    The Commonwealth realms I doubt will see much change anytime soon, in Canada certainly PM Trudeau is a royalist as are the main opposition Conservatives. In Australia the PM is a royalist too though Labor are led by a republican, in New Zealand PM Ardern is a Republican but the Deputy PM and her coalition Partner Winston Peters is a monarchist
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Love how the woke Sussex pair with their climate change scolding are going to be regularly jetting on transatlantic flights.

    “Let then eat staycations”
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,079
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    I am not surprised at all that Harry and Meghan have got pissed off at the way the tabloids have behaved about them. Expect more insidious British racism over the next few weeks. Lots of innuendo about how she doesn't belong etc, at least in America they have the honesty to be up front in their racism, so you can counter it.

    I hope she goes back to her career, and Harry becomes a House Husband, and that they live happily ever after. The Windsors are a pretty toxic dysfunctional family, so better off away from it.
    Then why are they saying they intend to undertake royal duties still? This is my problem with arguments like yours - if that is how they feel they truly should be renouncing all title and responsibilties and going off to be happy together, not fully away from the vile press but after a time it might at least lessen. Full blessings to them for that.

    But that's not what they have stated they are doing, or intending to do at least, so your hopes for them is going further than their own stated hopes, and whatever the strains they have they officially at least don't share your view on the toxicity of the family, so either you're projecting your view onto them, or their are being less than honest about what path they want to take.
    I think they will do a lot less, probably keep Harry's role in things like the Invictus games etc, but not much else.

    It is interesting that the mentioned North America rather than USA. Maybe they will settle in Canada.

    I see it more like a John Lennon retreat from public life, at least as far as possible.

    Harry is a war veteran from a broken home, who lost his mother as an adolescent. It would strain anybody's mental health, so he deserves to be cut some slack.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Quincel said:

    There is more chance in Gerry Adams coming the next leader of the conservative party than bloomberg winning.

    Bloomberg's chances are considerably lower than 0.1%.

    Why so low, given his non-negligible polling? He's hardly on track to win, but why so sure he can't surge from where he is?
    I'd love to believe his chance was 0.1%, but it's definitely better than that. Perhaps 2% or so - it ain't 9%.
  • So the Firm might be looking for a couple of replacement players in the transfer window. A couple of Kardashians might be available to add some pep.
  • Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Even as a republican the one part of royal funding I have no problem with is their security costs. It is clearly in the countrys interest that a senior royal is not kidnapped as it leaves us open to extortion. That wouldnt change regardless of his role and is beyond his control.
    We're not open to extortion if he's retired from the firm. If Harry wants to not be a royal then he's not a royal. Now I don't wish him any ill, but if he's kidnapped or whatonot, the British state isn't on the hook for his ransom in the same way it would be if he was an official royal.
    I think the monarchy would have something to say about that and the govt would have no choice. Far better to spend what is needed on their protection, but make their estates subject to normal taxes.
  • Quincel said:

    There is more chance in Gerry Adams coming the next leader of the conservative party than bloomberg winning.

    Bloomberg's chances are considerably lower than 0.1%.

    Why so low, given his non-negligible polling? He's hardly on track to win, but why so sure he can't surge from where he is?
    Let's see if i'm correct when the primaries are sorted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    I am not surprised at all that Harry and Meghan have got pissed off at the way the tabloids have behaved about them. Expect more insidious British racism over the next few weeks. Lots of innuendo about how she doesn't belong etc, at least in America they have the honesty to be up front in their racism, so you can counter it.

    I hope she goes back to her career, and Harry becomes a House Husband, and that they live happily ever after. The Windsors are a pretty toxic dysfunctional family, so better off away from it.
    Then why are they saying they intend to undertake royal duties still? This is my problem with arguments like yours - if that is how they feel they truly should be renouncing all title and responsibilties and going off to be happy together, not fully away from the vile press but after a time it might at least lessen. Full blessings to them for that.

    But that's not what they have stated they are doing, or intending to do at least, so your hopes for them is going further than their own stated hopes, and whatever the strains they have they officially at least don't share your view on the toxicity of the family, so either you're projecting your view onto them, or their are being less than honest about what path they want to take.
    I think they will do a lot less, probably keep Harry's role in things like the Invictus games etc, but not much else.

    It is interesting that the mentioned North America rather than USA. Maybe they will settle in Canada.

    I see it more like a John Lennon retreat from public life, at least as far as possible.

    Harry is a war veteran from a broken home, who lost his mother as an adolescent. It would strain anybody's mental health, so he deserves to be cut some slack.
    Which I do, and I've no issue with Meghan, or their wokeness. But much reduced role is still being involved, and if being a royal with official duties and attention is so awful and burdensome for them, and given we have heirs and a spare already, then no need to pussyfoot around.

    The one thing I cannot understand is this apparent not even letting anyone else know before going to the press. That's just discourteous, and since as you've noted some involvement however small was probably intended, its not simply a matter of them being private citizens who can do whatever they like. It seems designed to spark a crisis and a complete break.
  • MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Interest would be a lot on that
  • kinabalu said:

    Yokes said:

    When you got money, you can have delusions. The difficulty is straightforward. Trump probably cant win unless he comes up against a total socialist. Trump's base just isn't enough as it stands BUT its pretty damn solid. The Democrat base is motivated but in order to achieve a clear victory it needs the classic swing voters. Bloomberg threatens that section of votes.

    IMO Trump is going to lose regardless. But my confidence in that prediction would be a tad less if Bernie is the opponent, and a little less again if Bloomberg clutters things up as a 3rd candidate.
    Cool, although I think trump will win.
  • nunu2 said:

    FPT

    Just to add to the sense of farce, to all intents and purposes it's already too late. With over 40% of those eligible now having made a nomination, does Gardiner (or McCluskey) realise that he'll need about 17% of those yet to make a nomination to back him unless other candidates withdraw?

    The procedural rules seem clear that once submitted, a nomination can't be withdrawn unless the candidate nominated has withdrawn:

    "All nominations will remain valid once submitted unless the
    nomination is formally withdrawn (if the nominated candidate has
    withdrawn in writing to the General Secretary). MPs and MEPs who
    nominated a candidate who withdraws or is disqualified will be entitled
    to submit a further nomination prior to the deadline for PLP and EPLP
    nominations. Nomination forms will be re-issued to affected MPs and
    MEPs."
    Labour had a 7% swing against them in Brent North. That is a pretty bad result for a seat that is now likely majority non white and is in London. Doesnt say much about Gardiner. In contrast Phillip's only lost about 2% in a 60% Leave seat. Pretty good actually.
    Even Ilford South had a 5% swing against.
  • TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,043
    edited January 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    The Sun says Harry wants to keep his 6 bodyguards at a cost of £600k per year.

    Let him pay for them. That's a serious annual cost to fund even if he has £20m in the bank.

    And if he is cut-off properly, I wonder how long the £20m will last?

    Even as a republican the one part of royal funding I have no problem with is their security costs. It is clearly in the countrys interest that a senior royal is not kidnapped as it leaves us open to extortion. That wouldnt change regardless of his role and is beyond his control.
    We're not open to extortion if he's retired from the firm. If Harry wants to not be a royal then he's not a royal. Now I don't wish him any ill, but if he's kidnapped or whatonot, the British state isn't on the hook for his ransom in the same way it would be if he was an official royal.
    They might mistake him for Ed Sheeran.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Coincidentally, I've been watching Reign on Netflix, the absurdly silly teeny take on Mary Queen of Scots at the French Court - all the silly drama and angst of a typical american teen show, then suddenly everyone is talking coldly and practically about royal alliances and the fates of kingdoms, it's great nonsense.

    For some reason the conjunction of archaic royal formality and modern emotional me me me sensibilities seems apt to recent news.

    Pleasant night to all, especially Her Majesty.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Better still, cut all the royals. Replace them​ with aliens, they'd do better.

    Already been tried, David Icke has written about this in detail
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited January 2020
    On topic, this market is nuts but this is so nuts it has to be deliberate manipulation. You have a public duty to take Bloomberg's money.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    HYUFD said:

    Far from it, Boris was trying to respect the will of the people as confirmed by the general election, not abandoning his duties

    His goals can be validly debated but what is undeniable is that he cynically exploited a vulnerable old lady in order to achieve them.
  • On topic, this market is nuts but this is so nuts it has to be deliberate manipulation. You have a public duty to take Bloomberg's money.

    Without a shadow of a doubt.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Judging by many of the responses to that tweet, Harry and Meghan will have plenty of support. Though for me the acceptance of them just wanting to be carefree and happy does not gel with the split their time statement. Either they want to be part of things or they want to be free to do whatever they want, and I for one am content for them to do the latter and hope they can be happy, but so long as they say they intend to undertake some royal duties the argument that they should be able to do whatever their please doesn't fully hold up, as they are themselves still claiming to want some restriction in their choices.

    Over a million likes in support so far including mine.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2020
    Barnesian said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Sun 'Charles and William incandescent with rage'


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10701694/queen-deeply-upset-harry-meghan-markles-exit-civil-war/.

    Looks like they are about to be cut off, Meghan really is Wallace Simpson 2 with Harry a latter day Edward VIII

    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1215048160613105665
    Judging by many of the responses to that tweet, Harry and Meghan will have plenty of support. Though for me the acceptance of them just wanting to be carefree and happy does not gel with the split their time statement. Either they want to be part of things or they want to be free to do whatever they want, and I for one am content for them to do the latter and hope they can be happy, but so long as they say they intend to undertake some royal duties the argument that they should be able to do whatever their please doesn't fully hold up, as they are themselves still claiming to want some restriction in their choices.

    Over a million likes in support so far including mine.
    I don't dislike what they want to do, I just think the method appears to be needlessly mean to those they claim they still want to work with and therefore counter productive, or else confused about what they are actually after. Sympathy for how awful people are to them doesn't erase those issues.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Far from it, Boris was trying to respect the will of the people as confirmed by the general election, not abandoning his duties

    His goals can be validly debated but what is undeniable is that he cynically exploited a vulnerable old lady in order to achieve them.
    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2020
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's plan is not really the Democratic nomination, it is to set the stage for an Independent bid if, as looks increasingly likely, it is a Trump v Sanders general election and get the most votes for a 3rd party candidate since the 19% for Ross Perot in 1992 (Perot even led some early summer 1992 polls against Bush Snr and Bill Clinton).

    Why would he do that given he could not win as an independent?
    As in his view Sanders and Trump are both so equally awful he has no choice but to give the country a third party alternative and as a billionaire like Perot he can afford to fund it
    By standing as an independent he wants to stop Sanders winning and make sure Trump does in the event that Sanders wins the Democrat nomination. If Biden gets the nomination, Bloomberg will not stand. He's using his money to ensure that Biden gets the nomination. It's simple blackmail.
    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination, so Bloomberg will stand as an Independent
  • The Windsors seem pretty good at distributing time e.g. between Scotland, England and (to some extent) Wales - presumably this has long had a deliberate element of trying not to seem too much the "English" royal family. Although there is the odd royal tour of Canada / Australia / NZ and some of the other places they still provide the head of state, it's long puzzled me that they don't do more active engagement overseas. Perhaps not an annual Balmoral-style retreat to somewhere warm in Australia, but they do seem to have some spare capacity, princes/princesses quite far down the line of succession, so why not open up a more full-time subsidiary branch in Canada or Oz for cultivating their ties there - all the hospital openings, railroad unveilings and a spot of charity work?

    The current situation with Harry is not what I was expecting, but if the royal family had been mad enough to ask me a year or two ago "what do you think we should do with these two?" my first response would be "send them to Canada and find something useful, decently high profile and relatively uncontroversial to do". Imagine they wouldn't be best suited to sticking to the uncontroversial, but they do have drive and a degree of relatability, so if energy was expended in the right direction, they could potentially delay republicanism by a generation.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    HYUFD said:


    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination

    Where does this come from ?

    He's behind Warren in the latest Yougov poll - and looks a touch overdone at around 4.2 on Betfair to me.
    In the polling average he's still a mile behind Biden who will be ahead in delegates after South Carolina and Nevada.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:


    It looks increasingly like Sanders will get the nomination

    Where does this come from ?

    He's behind Warren in the latest Yougov poll - and looks a touch overdone at around 4.2 on Betfair to me.
    In the polling average he's still a mile behind Biden who will be ahead in delegates after South Carolina and Nevada.
    Sanders is ahead in the latest Iowa and New Hampshire polls and no candidate in almost 50 years has won both of those states and failed to win the nomination.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
    I hope I am that frail at 93!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    I doubt Gardiner will actually run, let alone get on the ballot. But the fact he is being prompted by people to run, just shows how much disquiet their is about RLB amongst the Corbyn left. She's really had an abysmal start to her campaign so far.

    She appears to have been mortally wounded by the starting pistol.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    No, MPs at the time sought to force the Queen into a position of overturning the will of the people, the will of the people prevailed, as did Boris

    OK, so in your view the ends (respecting the 2016 referendum) justified the means (exploitation of frail old lady). Fine. But not everybody is so sanguine about it.
    It was MPs exploting a frail old lady through the Benn Act to defy the will of the people and the people had their revenge by throwing the Remainer majority out
This discussion has been closed.