Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg’s high budget WH2020 campaign will continue against

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg’s high budget WH2020 campaign will continue against Trump even if he fails to win the nomination

In a move that steps up to even greater levels the amount being spent on the WH20202 campaign multi-billionaire and contender Mike Bloomberg has announced that his entire campaign organisation will be put at the disposal of whoever the nominee is should it fail to be him.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    First
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Whilst it's good for the Democrats winning the Presidency, I'm not sure this announcement (right now) is good for Bloomberg's chances.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Also, this is incorrect. I read on this board that if Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination, then he's running as a Third Party Candidate. Somebody even bet this with me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    Whilst it's good for the Democrats winning the Presidency, I'm not sure this announcement (right now) is good for Bloomberg's chances.

    I must admit, I would have enjoyed seeing Bloomberg debate Trump. Bloomberg is incredibly smart, but incredibly grouchy, and doesn't suffer fools gladly.

    On the other hand, he deals in the world of facts and reality, while Donald Trump just spouts any old nonsense, so it wouldn't necessarily be a fair fight. (The famous debating with a pigeon comes to mind.)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 17,836
    rcs1000 said:

    Also, this is incorrect. I read on this board that if Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination, then he's running as a Third Party Candidate. Somebody even bet this with me.

    Whisper it, but he might, just might, have looked at the Life of Ross Perot and changed his mind.

    he's got the right to do so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    Monarchism or Republicanism aside, is it not an odd policy to call for after a divisive referendum, when there is not a huge public clamour for it?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280
    Is it me, or are we getting far fewer Iowa polls than we did at this point in 2016? We seemed to get one every day from Jan 5th... this time around, we've had, errrr...., one poll so far.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    kle4 said:

    Monarchism or Republicanism aside, is it not an odd policy to call for after a divisive referendum, when there is not a huge public clamour for it?
    Its about as stupid as Peter Andre wading into Stormzy vs Wiley feud....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    edited January 10
    Terrific news. I was dubious that he had plans to run as an Independent if Sanders got it but what a relief to have this confirmed. Not that I think Sanders will get it but still. Only one thing really matters in 2020 and it's not our trade deal with the EU, or whether Iran succeeds in establishing hegemony in the Middle East, or even whether Harry and Mehgan are able to square the circle and find peace, prosperity and fulfillment, it's Trump out. If Trump loses, 2020 is a great year. If he wins a 2nd term, it's a pig.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited January 10
    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy.

    While I generally feel similarly about citizens' assemblies, and while it should not be a necessary thing in order to get the parties working together on the issue of social care, it might well be the only way they would agree to cooperate to start to address the issue, and that is sorely needed.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 2,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Also, this is incorrect. I read on this board that if Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination, then he's running as a Third Party Candidate. Somebody even bet this with me.

    Lol! Paging HYUFD!!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    kle4 said:

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy.

    While I generally feel similarly about citizens' assemblies, and while it should not be a necessary thing in order to get the parties working together on the issue of social care, it might well be the only way they would agree to cooperate to start to address the issue, and that is sorely needed.
    I just don't see the public doing a good job on this. The example of abortion laws in Ireland is always brought up, but that more than anything is an emotional / moral decision. The science isn't that complicated, it is where you feel the line is for your person morals.

    How to fund a social care policy is incredibly complex, requiring understanding of some many factors.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    Wow. This is a big deal.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.

    Yes, but Citizens Assemlies allow MPs to avoid responsibility. With the EU-crutch being taken away ("it wasn't my idea, it was forced on me by Brussels"), MPs need a new way to pass the buck.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    Does this offer apply if Bernie is the candidate?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited January 10
    rcs1000 said:

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.

    Yes, but Citizens Assemlies allow MPs to avoid responsibility. With the EU-crutch being taken away ("it wasn't my idea, it was forced on me by Brussels"), MPs need a new way to pass the buck.
    Surely not...how could one be so cynical.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited January 10
    Extinction Rebellion listed as extremist ideology in police guidance

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr-extinction-rebellion-listed-extremist-ideology-police-prevent-scheme-guidance

    Quite right...they should add ethical vegan lot on there as well. Killing all the bees for their almond milk.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,975
    rcs1000 said:

    Also, this is incorrect. I read on this board that if Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination, then he's running as a Third Party Candidate. Somebody even bet this with me.

    It was blindingly obvious that Bloomberg would not run as a third party candidate. His total objective is to stop Trump.
  • kle4 said:

    Monarchism or Republicanism aside, is it not an odd policy to call for after a divisive referendum, when there is not a huge public clamour for it?
    It's also a bit gutless. What is Lewis' view on the matter? As far as I can see, he's calling for a referendum on an unspecified question.

    In any event, if the question is "should the monarchy be scaled back?" that isn't really appropriate for a referendum at all - it's a discussion with the Palace based partly on budgetary matters.

    If the question is the more radical "should we call it a day (presumably after the Queen is gone)?" then it's only worth a referendum if it is plausible that public opinion is stable and close to or over 50% "yes". Personally, I'd be a "yes" but am under no illusion that more than about 30% are with me so wouldn't suggest wasting political capital (and public money) on the issue. If Lewis' end-game is abolition, then he should be honest about it... and seek to convince people like me who are broadly sympathetic that it wouldn't be a massive waste of time and effort pursuing it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473

    Does this offer apply if Bernie is the candidate?

    I hope and presume so.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867


    I don't know why they are even bothering with the Deputy election. Rayner will take this by a landslide.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,280

    Does this offer apply if Bernie is the candidate?

    I think Bloomberg's view (and I'm just guessing here), is that the processes and systems of government matter. Institutions are important.

    And the institutions that built America will survive four years of Bernie. They may not survive another four years Trump.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Also, this is incorrect. I read on this board that if Bloomberg doesn't get the nomination, then he's running as a Third Party Candidate. Somebody even bet this with me.

    It was blindingly obvious that Bloomberg would not run as a third party candidate. His total objective is to stop Trump.
    I agree.

    Also, if that was his game he'd not go through the Democratic primary process at all. It just isn't credible to run as an independent off the back of LOSING the nomination contest as he's immediately a bad loser. Whereas he could conceivably step in as a third party candidate if he stayed out of the nomination process, the Democrats chose a weak candidate who looked destined to lose, and he was stepping in "for the good of the nation".

    I think he appreciates that, and his objective is exactly as it appears - either win outright or win enough delegates to have a shout in a brokered convention. Either way, he'll be Democratic candidate or not a candidate at all.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    edited January 10

    kle4 said:

    Monarchism or Republicanism aside, is it not an odd policy to call for after a divisive referendum, when there is not a huge public clamour for it?
    It's also a bit gutless. What is Lewis' view on the matter? As far as I can see, he's calling for a referendum on an unspecified question.

    In any event, if the question is "should the monarchy be scaled back?" that isn't really appropriate for a referendum at all - it's a discussion with the Palace based partly on budgetary matters.

    If the question is the more radical "should we call it a day (presumably after the Queen is gone)?" then it's only worth a referendum if it is plausible that public opinion is stable and close to or over 50% "yes". Personally, I'd be a "yes" but am under no illusion that more than about 30% are with me so wouldn't suggest wasting political capital (and public money) on the issue. If Lewis' end-game is abolition, then he should be honest about it... and seek to convince people like me who are broadly sympathetic that it wouldn't be a massive waste of time and effort pursuing it.
    Hasn’t the point been made in recent times, that a referendum on the subject of which most of the government want to maintain the status quo, is a bad idea.

    A referendum is useful on something politically neutral but a moral judgement, or when the government is wholeheartedly in favour of a constitutional change and wishes to get affirmation from the people. But not when most of the government don’t want the proposed change.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    God, American politics is boring compared to ours

    And I never thought I’d be able to say that
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698



    I don't know why they are even bothering with the Deputy election. Rayner will take this by a landslide.
    Probably. Sympathy vote for Ian Murray though?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,528
    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    FPT: If taken literally it could surely be extended everywhere.

    Mark Chapman presenting Match of the Day on Sunday is on a fraction of the pay Gary Lineker gets for MOTD on a Saturday. Their jobs are even more similar than Ahmed and Vine. Can Chapman now claim millions?

    What about two footballers in the same team playing the same number of games? They are doing the same job, working the same hours etc. But it would be completely ludicrous to pay every player the same.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Is it me, or are we getting far fewer Iowa polls than we did at this point in 2016? We seemed to get one every day from Jan 5th... this time around, we've had, errrr...., one poll so far.

    Worth noting that Iowa polls historically haven't been very accurate at all, so I'm not sure it's a huge loss. The unusual format is part of this - a lot depends on organisation and mood on the night.

    Polls in 2016 had Trump winning by around 5% on average, but actually Cruz took it by 3% and Rubio was overperformed by a good 6 or 7%. The Democrat one was better (in essentially a simpler two-horse race), although Sanders was quite a lot closer to Clinton than the polling suggested. In 2012, Santorum won the Republican caucus despite ALL polls in the immediate run up having him in 3rd (even in 4th in a couple).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    edited January 10
    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    The result will be that the BBC won’t employ any presenters directly. They’ll outsource all their programme-making to third-party production companies on a show-by-show basis. The ‘big name’ presenter will probably be a shareholder in the production company.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,418

    Does this offer apply if Bernie is the candidate?

    Or Warre
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    Does this buy the VP slot? I suspect it might. Maybe Bloomberg watched Vice and thought, "I could do that". He probably could.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,935
    That Angela Rayner video was good until she started talking about Jeremy Corbyn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    MikeL said:

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    FPT: If taken literally it could surely be extended everywhere.

    Mark Chapman presenting Match of the Day on Sunday is on a fraction of the pay Gary Lineker gets for MOTD on a Saturday. Their jobs are even more similar than Ahmed and Vine. Can Chapman now claim millions?

    What about two footballers in the same team playing the same number of games? They are doing the same job, working the same hours etc. But it would be completely ludicrous to pay every player the same.
    In the case of Man U it is not obvious why anyone other than Rashford and De Gea gets paid at all (and I am increasingly unsure about the latter).
  • For the subject and title, bloomberg has as much as Clive Lewis.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    MikeL said:

    FPT: If taken literally it could surely be extended everywhere.

    Mark Chapman presenting Match of the Day on Sunday is on a fraction of the pay Gary Lineker gets for MOTD on a Saturday. Their jobs are even more similar than Ahmed and Vine. Can Chapman now claim millions?

    What about two footballers in the same team playing the same number of games? They are doing the same job, working the same hours etc. But it would be completely ludicrous to pay every player the same.

    Ah sorry, has this already been done to death on PTs? But, yes, what a very fascinating set of questions and challenges it throws up. One of the biggest of which for me is - do we level up or level down? Chapman bumped up to £5m, to take your excellent example, or Lineker slashed to £500k? I suppose most of the public, generous in spirit as they are, would plump for the former approach - but applied widely it could be unaffordable and the timing could not be worse, given the licence fee is in the spotlight and we have a government with a big majority which is not well disposed to Auntie.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340
    Other than cream, what rises to the top?
  • Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    The result will be that the BBC won’t employ any presenters directly. They’ll outsource all their programme-making to third-party production companies on a show-by-show basis. The ‘big name’ presenter will probably be a shareholder in the production company.
    I'm not sure that's necessarily right, although I see the logic.

    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    rcs1000 said:

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.

    Yes, but Citizens Assemlies allow MPs to avoid responsibility. With the EU-crutch being taken away ("it wasn't my idea, it was forced on me by Brussels"), MPs need a new way to pass the buck.
    Connsidering the proportion of Westminster legislation that emanated from Brussels, and the trappist silence on the issue from our own MP's, it seems to me the flow of bucks being passed was very much in the opposite direction.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    The result will be that the BBC won’t employ any presenters directly. They’ll outsource all their programme-making to third-party production companies on a show-by-show basis. The ‘big name’ presenter will probably be a shareholder in the production company.
    I'm not sure that's necessarily right, although I see the logic.

    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.
    I fear the short version is that their management is not only grossly overpaid but also completely incompetent. This case should have been capable of being laughed out of court but if you really have no rationale for the salaries you pay...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    This may be the case if say Biden is the nominee, if Sanders wins the nomination I expect Bloomberg will run himself as an Independent given he has blasted both Trump and Sanders as 'demagogues

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    Sandpit said:

    The result will be that the BBC won’t employ any presenters directly. They’ll outsource all their programme-making to third-party production companies on a show-by-show basis. The ‘big name’ presenter will probably be a shareholder in the production company.

    They do some of that now, I believe. I wonder what the drivers are for whether they do or they don't in each case?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    HYUFD said:

    This may be the case if say Biden is the nominee, if Sanders wins the nomination I expect Bloomberg will run himself as an Independent given he has blasted both Trump and Sanders as 'demagogues

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html

    Unless, as I said, he is VP with executive authority. The scene where Dick Cheney had the fishing metaphor with Bush when discussing his role was one of the better scenes in the film.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,832
    The zaniest campaign of 2020 is over.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990
    rcs1000 said:

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.

    Yes, but Citizens Assemlies allow MPs to avoid responsibility. With the EU-crutch being taken away ("it wasn't my idea, it was forced on me by Brussels"), MPs need a new way to pass the buck.
    I think this is overly cynical.

    Citizens` Assemblies is a mechanism which could in principle be used in an attempt to supplement or bypass democracy. For example, Extinction Rebellion advocates strongly for CAs because it recognises that democracy (whether direct or representative) will never tackle the planet`s environmental woes - which are human-caused and turkeys don`t vote for Christmas blah blah.

    ER`s CAs would not be made up of random electorate (that could be counter-productive to their aims), rather they would be made up of scientists, naturalists and environmental campaigners.

    Their view - and mine - is that business as usual is not even slightly able to produce the change that is needed. Something drastic has to be done to ameliorate the shocking loss of biodiversity and wild habitat, and ER is at least coming up with something which would have a real effect if global cooperation were achieved alongside.

    I know ER is hated by many (I disagree with some of their antics) but they are not looking for popularity.
  • Whilst, in the end, his General Election vote meant he wasn't responsible for Labour losing Derby North, it could easily have done so if he'd not been so widely disliked.

    His 635 votes was indeed derisory compared with any of the other MPs who stood for new parties or as independents. Frank Field got over 7,000. Hell, even the disgraced and unpleasant John Browne picked up over 3,000 in Winchester in 1992. I struggle to understand how low Williamson's stock must have been in his constituency to get not even close to 2% - it's pathetic.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,211
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    The result will be that the BBC won’t employ any presenters directly. They’ll outsource all their programme-making to third-party production companies on a show-by-show basis. The ‘big name’ presenter will probably be a shareholder in the production company.

    They do some of that now, I believe. I wonder what the drivers are for whether they do or they don't in each case?
    They do indeed. Obvious examples being the old Top Gear and The Graham Norton Show.

    I assume the decision on this at the moment, is based on whether the programme is conceived in-house or pitched to them by a production company in the first place.

    But yes, it does sound like their £500k a year ‘head of people’ hasn’t got anything like a formal pay structure in place.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 989
    edited January 10
    At what point are Labour going to come to the frightening (for them politically) realisation that the Conservatives might actually have strong electoral reasons now for NOT “launching an assault on Working class communities”. In fact the complete opposite.

    That’s the whole thing about our electoral system. If you show a willingness to vote for a party in power, and even more so if that willingness to vote actually will result in changing the election results, then parties will actually pay attention to you.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    Cyclefree said:
    Isn't he still persona non grata as far as the Labour Party are concerned? As Momentum own the Labour Party, presumably he is also persona non grata as far as Momentum are concerned.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:
    Isn't he still persona non grata as far as the Labour Party are concerned? As Momentum own the Labour Party, presumably he is also persona non grata as far as Momentum are concerned.
    Ah. Had forgotten. But if he’s out of Labour how will his new movement help Labour then?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    edited January 10

    I'm not sure that's necessarily right, although I see the logic.

    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.

    To combine a public service ethic with star driven entertainment is difficult. AFAIK, the BBC is globally unique in having this challenge to deal with and I am not surprised that they haven't cracked it - but one hopes they are better at it now than they used to be.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    alex_ said:

    At what point are Labour going to come to the frightening (for them politically) realisation that the Conservatives might actually have strong electoral reasons now for NOT “launching an assault on Working class communities”. In fact the complete opposite.

    That’s the whole thing about our electoral system. If you show a willingness to vote for a party in power, and even more so if that willingness to vote actually will result in changing the election results, then parties will actually pay attention to you.
    Never. Tories spend all their time and energy thinking of new and devilish ways to do down the poor and the working class. They're evil. If they didn't they wouldn't be Tories.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    HYUFD said:

    This may be the case if say Biden is the nominee, if Sanders wins the nomination I expect Bloomberg will run himself as an Independent given he has blasted both Trump and Sanders as 'demagogues

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html

    Well, the likelihood is that your assertion will never get to be tested.
    But you’re still wrong. :smile:
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,367
    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Isn't he still persona non grata as far as the Labour Party are concerned? As Momentum own the Labour Party, presumably he is also persona non grata as far as Momentum are concerned.
    Ah. Had forgotten. But if he’s out of Labour how will his new movement help Labour then?
    I suspect what matters is what helps Williamson as opposed to what helps Labour. Although he probably believes the two are mutually inclusive, as everyone else knows, they are not.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 1,990
    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    GeT your Tits Out?
  • alex_ said:

    At what point are Labour going to come to the frightening (for them politically) realisation that the Conservatives might actually have strong electoral reasons now for NOT “launching an assault on Working class communities”. In fact the complete opposite.

    That’s the whole thing about our electoral system. If you show a willingness to vote for a party in power, and even more so if that willingness to vote actually will result in changing the election results, then parties will actually pay attention to you.
    As importantly, the Tories are hardly going to brand their own policies as an "assault on working class communities" and people who voted Conservative in 2019 have a strong reason not to buy into the idea such a thing is happening (as presumably they'd be partly responsible in that narrative).

    That sort of language is preaching to the choir, and Labour badly need to move away from it. They need those people who deserted them for the Conservatives, and quite a few more too, to switch blue to red. That requires the language of "offering an alternative" and "rebuilding trust".

    Even if you're a convinced socialist and believe these things need to be done by finding new ways to make a radical agenda feel relevant and appealing, rather than by watering it down, the language currently being used is almost designed to repel voters.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    A strange hashtag given there are many methods of getting the Tories out Williamson and co will not accept, like trying to appeal to the electorate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    A strange hashtag given there are many methods of getting the Tories out Williamson and co will not accept, like trying to appeal to the electorate.
    Ah, but once you break through the false consciousness...
  • Quincel said:
    Bugs bunny has more chance.
  • kinabalu said:

    I'm not sure that's necessarily right, although I see the logic.

    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.

    To combine a public service ethic with star driven entertainment is difficult. AFAIK, the BBC is globally unique in having this challenge to deal with and I am not surprised that they haven't cracked it - but one hopes they are better at it now than they used to be.
    Really? The equal pay rules they've been clobbered under aren't specific to public institutions and, in any event, the BBC is a large public service broadcaster but not the only significant one.

    I accept it's tougher to deal with this when you're looking at "stars" and a slightly amorphous sense of charisma and public appeal, rather than seniority, or defined responsibilities. But there are things you can do, either by having grades or saying "this is an important programme and will pay £x per episode... but we WILL interview for it and be willing to defend the choice".
  • kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    A strange hashtag given there are many methods of getting the Tories out Williamson and co will not accept, like trying to appeal to the electorate.
    Standing as the ex-Labour MP against the official Labour candidate is also a peculiar approach to "getting the Tories out".
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,352

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    A strange hashtag given there are many methods of getting the Tories out Williamson and co will not accept, like trying to appeal to the electorate.
    Standing as the ex-Labour MP against the official Labour candidate is also a peculiar approach to "getting the Tories out".
    It could have been worse, he could have supported the Labour candidate.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    Is that get the Tories (Blairites) out of Labour or get the proper Tories out of government?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    @HYUFD

    Are you going to apologize for the fake news you put out on Wednesday that Mike was going to run as an Indy to spike Bernie if Bernie got the Dem Nom?

    Apologize to ME, I mean, because (i) you know how much it means to me that Trump loses, and (ii) you wrote it with such authority and gravitas that I ended up half believing it - against my better judgement - and thus had not one but TWO nights of poor sleep.

    If you are big enough to say sorry, I am big enough to not only forgive but forget.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Stocky said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    GeT your Tits Out?
    A policy of ER I could get behind.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    Stocky said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Phillips, whose campaign slogan is “speak truth, win power”, said she stands ready to work with the Conservatives and other parties to solve a problem that has dogged successive governments.

    She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care

    This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.

    Yes, but Citizens Assemlies allow MPs to avoid responsibility. With the EU-crutch being taken away ("it wasn't my idea, it was forced on me by Brussels"), MPs need a new way to pass the buck.
    I think this is overly cynical.

    Citizens` Assemblies is a mechanism which could in principle be used in an attempt to supplement or bypass democracy. For example, Extinction Rebellion advocates strongly for CAs because it recognises that democracy (whether direct or representative) will never tackle the planet`s environmental woes - which are human-caused and turkeys don`t vote for Christmas blah blah.

    ER`s CAs would not be made up of random electorate (that could be counter-productive to their aims), rather they would be made up of scientists, naturalists and environmental campaigners.

    Their view - and mine - is that business as usual is not even slightly able to produce the change that is needed. Something drastic has to be done to ameliorate the shocking loss of biodiversity and wild habitat, and ER is at least coming up with something which would have a real effect if global cooperation were achieved alongside.

    I know ER is hated by many (I disagree with some of their antics) but they are not looking for popularity.
    So basically you're arguing for a dictatorship led by the likes of ER and the associated suspension of democracy?

    Forgive me if I don't sign up for that.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    BigRich said:

    I thought that 'Momentum' was the grass-roots organisation doing this, or have even they tolled Williamson where to go?

    Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
    Guessing Get The Tories Out.
    A strange hashtag given there are many methods of getting the Tories out Williamson and co will not accept, like trying to appeal to the electorate.
    It'd be more accurate given his record if he amended his Twitter handle to #GTTI
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    edited January 10
    Harry and Meghan see their role as royal 'disrupters' forging a new model for the royal family in the 21st century similar to the tech innovators who have challenged corporate heavyweights.

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/were-royal-disrupters-prince-harry-110900975.html

    Prince Harry meanwhile is looking to style his new life on Obama's post White House career, with philanthropic causes, speeches, book deals and making documentaries in the mix

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/oprah-denies-helping-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-build-new-role-they-dont-need-my-advice-on-breaking-free/ar-BBYP3p7?li=AA59G2
  • Bloomberg's a true patriot.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    edited January 10

    Really? The equal pay rules they've been clobbered under aren't specific to public institutions and, in any event, the BBC is a large public service broadcaster but not the only significant one.

    I accept it's tougher to deal with this when you're looking at "stars" and a slightly amorphous sense of charisma and public appeal, rather than seniority, or defined responsibilities. But there are things you can do, either by having grades or saying "this is an important programme and will pay £x per episode... but we WILL interview for it and be willing to defend the choice".

    No, I don't mean the gender aspect, I specifically mean what you touch on the 2nd para. What is a "star"? Do we need one? Which one? Why him or her? How much will they cost us? Can we justify that? How do we measure in running whether they are worth it? What about going with a lesser known instead? Or a complete unknown even? Etc.

    Public service institutions do not usually have to deal with questions such as this (slight caveat to RBS when nationalized). But yes, like you say, there are things the BBC can do to meet the challenge and hopefully they are now doing them. If so they should be less likely to find themselves at the wrong end of actions such as this one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    edited January 10
    kinabalu said:

    @HYUFD

    Are you going to apologize for the fake news you put out on Wednesday that Mike was going to run as an Indy to spike Bernie if Bernie got the Dem Nom?

    Apologize to ME, I mean, because (i) you know how much it means to me that Trump loses, and (ii) you wrote it with such authority and gravitas that I ended up half believing it - against my better judgement - and thus had not one but TWO nights of poor sleep.

    If you are big enough to say sorry, I am big enough to not only forgive but forget.

    No I am not because it is not fake news and if Sanders wins the nomination I remain of the view Bloomberg will run as an Independent.

    Bloomberg has called Sanders 'a demagogue' and technically Sanders is not a Democrat but a socialist independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Note this statement was also made by Bloomberg's campaign manager, not Bloomberg himself with the aim of making Bloomberg seem like a loyal Democrat ahead of the primaries

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 2,562
    On topic : Bloomberg is serving notice (among other things) on the remaining Clintonistas that they can't financially take over the party like last time.

    Angela Rayner - Being salt of the earth is like being funny or hard. If you say "I am X", your are not X.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    This may be the case if say Biden is the nominee, if Sanders wins the nomination I expect Bloomberg will run himself as an Independent given he has blasted both Trump and Sanders as 'demagogues

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html

    Unless, as I said, he is VP with executive authority. The scene where Dick Cheney had the fishing metaphor with Bush when discussing his role was one of the better scenes in the film.
    Sanders would rather make Hillary his VP than Bloomberg, the 2 loathe each other as much as they loathe Trump
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    The most important news about the 2020 primaries is the impeachment trial starts next week and will last throughout Iowa and perhaps N.Hampshire.

    It means no meaningfull media campaigning as the trial will drown it, the Senators have to choose between being at the trial and try to use it as a platform on CNN or campaigning locally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    This may be the case if say Biden is the nominee, if Sanders wins the nomination I expect Bloomberg will run himself as an Independent given he has blasted both Trump and Sanders as 'demagogues

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html

    Unless, as I said, he is VP with executive authority. The scene where Dick Cheney had the fishing metaphor with Bush when discussing his role was one of the better scenes in the film.
    Sanders would rather make Hillary his VP than Bloomberg, the 2 loathe each other as much as they loathe Trump
    They told you, did they ?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,417


    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.

    As I understand it, the problem here wasn't really Male versus Female, but more about silos with the BBC - Entertainment vs News. And broadcast on different channels to very different audiences and with different styles requiring different approaches from the staff etc (and incidentally I really don't buy the finding that "no skill" is required in an eye-roll - one of the things that sets a good presenter apart from a less skilled one is their ability to convey different tones and emotionally engage with the audience, which I think is a tougher job in Entertainment rather than News programming because you can't just get by on gravitas)... but like you say, if no record-keeping of these pay decisions has been kept, and no formal structure has been laid down to justify them, then you're always going to be on a hiding to nothing.

    I wonder whether Ahmed's own lawyer genuinely believed that, had the sexes or jobs been swapped, then the nasty sexist BBC would have swapped the pay disparity around too? My guess, though this is only a guess, is that the legal team knew that sex was unlikely to have been the primary motivation for the gap in pay, but realised the BBC would be unable to effectively rebut the claim so it was worth a shot. (And for almost a million quid, it was!)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    kinabalu said:

    @HYUFD

    Are you going to apologize for the fake news you put out on Wednesday that Mike was going to run as an Indy to spike Bernie if Bernie got the Dem Nom?

    Apologize to ME, I mean, because (i) you know how much it means to me that Trump loses, and (ii) you wrote it with such authority and gravitas that I ended up half believing it - against my better judgement - and thus had not one but TWO nights of poor sleep.

    If you are big enough to say sorry, I am big enough to not only forgive but forget.

    Of course not.
    Diehard Tories are enjoying their ‘we are the masters now’ moment, which entails way too much certainty to do any such thing.

    It may persist for some time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    A boost for Boris if Stormont is back up and running?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,387
    MikeL said:

    kinabalu said:

    Off topic, I found the judgement against the BBC in Samira Ahmed vs Jeremy Vine interesting. It was decided that Vine's greater facility to satirically roll his eyes as he speaks did not merit being paid 6 times more. Relevant passage from the summary as below -

    "The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

    This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.

    FPT: If taken literally it could surely be extended everywhere.

    Mark Chapman presenting Match of the Day on Sunday is on a fraction of the pay Gary Lineker gets for MOTD on a Saturday. Their jobs are even more similar than Ahmed and Vine. Can Chapman now claim millions?

    What about two footballers in the same team playing the same number of games? They are doing the same job, working the same hours etc. But it would be completely ludicrous to pay every player the same.
    On merit, Gary Lineker does not deserve to be paid more than other presenters.On any objective basis, he is barely average.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,770
    kle4 said:

    Monarchism or Republicanism aside, is it not an odd policy to call for after a divisive referendum, when there is not a huge public clamour for it?
    It’s a unsown field in Labour election terms. He needs something to get himself noticed. In that sense it’s worked. Whether it translated to winning national votes is wholly irrelevant in that context.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,770
    kinabalu said:

    I'm not sure that's necessarily right, although I see the logic.

    The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.

    The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.

    To combine a public service ethic with star driven entertainment is difficult. AFAIK, the BBC is globally unique in having this challenge to deal with and I am not surprised that they haven't cracked it - but one hopes they are better at it now than they used to be.
    You’ve never heard of RTE have you? Effectively the same as the BBC. For someone who has so many opinions you’re bloody ignorant.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,336
    Evening all :)

    Jess Phillips got a fair write-up in the Standard this evening. Clearly, her anti-Corbyn comments have been well received and while Osborne (or whoever) wanted her to go a lot further on for instance Labour's relationship with the Unions, that can't claim until (or if) she wins.

    That's the thing - leadership candidates can't be seen to be too strong a break from the past - it's something they can work on once elected.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    This doesn’t raise any questions at all....

    On the day U.S. forces killed Soleimani, they launched another secret operation targeting a senior Iranian official in Yemen

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html
    The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration’s killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.
    U.S. military operations in Yemen, where a civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, are shrouded in secrecy. U.S. officials said the operation against Shahlai remains highly classified, and many declined to offer details other than to say it was not successful...




  • Labour Leader Elections : Current Standings.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    matt said:

    You’ve never heard of RTE have you? Effectively the same as the BBC. For someone who has so many opinions you’re bloody ignorant.

    I agree with the general charge of being not particularly knowledgeable on matters outside my core field of human nature and the meaning of life, however I'm not sure that there being an Irish equivalent to the BBC affects the point I make too much. But OK I was technically wrong to say "unique". Unique has a completely unique meaning. It means one and one only. Indeed for me to prefix it with "completely" just there was utterly gratuitous and unnecessary. There is no difference between unique and completely unique. And the BBC is neither since there is a similar entity in Ireland. And perhaps in some other countries too?
  • Crazy how Simon Coveney has more influence in Northern Ireland than the local MLAs.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 302
    What do people make of the Betfair exchange's implied probability of the main Labour candidates being next PM?

    Starmer - 66% chance of being next Labour leader - 15% chance of being next PM - ratio 4.3:1
    Long Bailey - 16% Labour leader - 4.1% PM - ratio 4.0:1
    Nandy - 12% Labour leader - 2.8% PM - ratio 4.3:1

    (PM numbers are very approximate for Long Bailey and Nandy because there's a sizable gap between the back- and lay-prices.)

    The first thing that surprised me is that Long Bailey's ratio isn't higher than Starmer's/Nandy's, given the widespread perception that she would be unelectable.

    The other thing is the implication that whoever wins will have a 25% chance, at best, of being next PM. The implied probability of Labour forming a government after the next general election is probably a bit higher, because there's a non-negligible chance of Johnson being replaced by Tory before the election, or of Labour having another leadership contest first. On the other hand, the latter also gives a path for a loser of this contest to be next PM. It's also possible that the next Labour leader could narrowly lose the next election, stay on, and be next PM anyway.

    Let's say that the implied chance of Labour forming a government after the next election is 30%, or maybe a little more. That seems low to me. Despite Labour's dire position, they probably only need the Tories to lose about 60 seats for that to happen.

    Although the Betfair exchange has a Next General Election market, no serious bets have been placed, and also there isn't a "government after election" market.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    Nigelb said:

    Of course not.
    Diehard Tories are enjoying their ‘we are the masters now’ moment, which entails way too much certainty to do any such thing.

    It may persist for some time.

    There certainly is a sense of confidence afoot.

    If they're like this when they lose the argument one dreads to think how torrid things would get if they were ever to win it.
  • kicorse said:

    What do people make of the Betfair exchange's implied probability of the main Labour candidates being next PM?

    Starmer - 66% chance of being next Labour leader - 15% chance of being next PM - ratio 4.3:1
    Long Bailey - 16% Labour leader - 4.1% PM - ratio 4.0:1
    Nandy - 12% Labour leader - 2.8% PM - ratio 4.3:1

    (PM numbers are very approximate for Long Bailey and Nandy because there's a sizable gap between the back- and lay-prices.)

    The first thing that surprised me is that Long Bailey's ratio isn't higher than Starmer's/Nandy's, given the widespread perception that she would be unelectable.

    The other thing is the implication that whoever wins will have a 25% chance, at best, of being next PM. The implied probability of Labour forming a government after the next general election is probably a bit higher, because there's a non-negligible chance of Johnson being replaced by Tory before the election, or of Labour having another leadership contest first. On the other hand, the latter also gives a path for a loser of this contest to be next PM. It's also possible that the next Labour leader could narrowly lose the next election, stay on, and be next PM anyway.

    Let's say that the implied chance of Labour forming a government after the next election is 30%, or maybe a little more. That seems low to me. Despite Labour's dire position, they probably only need the Tories to lose about 60 seats for that to happen.

    Although the Betfair exchange has a Next General Election market, no serious bets have been placed, and also there isn't a "government after election" market.

    They probably think it's too early for additional election markets.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 3,937
    kicorse said:

    What do people make of the Betfair exchange's implied probability of the main Labour candidates being next PM?

    Starmer - 66% chance of being next Labour leader - 15% chance of being next PM - ratio 4.3:1
    Long Bailey - 16% Labour leader - 4.1% PM - ratio 4.0:1
    Nandy - 12% Labour leader - 2.8% PM - ratio 4.3:1

    (PM numbers are very approximate for Long Bailey and Nandy because there's a sizable gap between the back- and lay-prices.)

    The first thing that surprised me is that Long Bailey's ratio isn't higher than Starmer's/Nandy's, given the widespread perception that she would be unelectable.

    The other thing is the implication that whoever wins will have a 25% chance, at best, of being next PM. The implied probability of Labour forming a government after the next general election is probably a bit higher, because there's a non-negligible chance of Johnson being replaced by Tory before the election, or of Labour having another leadership contest first. On the other hand, the latter also gives a path for a loser of this contest to be next PM. It's also possible that the next Labour leader could narrowly lose the next election, stay on, and be next PM anyway.

    Let's say that the implied chance of Labour forming a government after the next election is 30%, or maybe a little more. That seems low to me. Despite Labour's dire position, they probably only need the Tories to lose about 60 seats for that to happen.

    Although the Betfair exchange has a Next General Election market, no serious bets have been placed, and also there isn't a "government after election" market.

    Next Labour leader having a high chance to be next PM requires them to be sufficiently crap to not undermine Boris in Tory eyes. sufficiently good to stick around for five years, and sufficiently good to get the public to vote Labour.

This discussion has been closed.