Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary moves much closer to the nomination following Joe B

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary moves much closer to the nomination following Joe Biden’s announcement that he won’t be running

Next year’s White House race looks a lot clearer this evening following Joe Biden’s announcement within the past hour that he will not run for the Democratic nomination.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First past the post
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,128
    I've ditched all my Clinton red on Betfair. She now sits at a pretty -£0.00 on the exchange for me.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I would love for the States to have a woman Pres...just not this one..
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 863
    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,895
    edited October 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    I've ditched all my Clinton red on Betfair. She now sits at a pretty -£0.00 on the exchange for me.

    I too, pretty much covered myself (with the help of bwin).

    However I am still exposed on New Hampshire, not sure if I need to cover off.

    Do you think Clinton's chances are much strengthened there?

    Edit: decided to cover it off. Her polling position has improved there already (post debate).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381
    Junior Docs need to get a sense of reality..If you don't want the job then move on.. next..

    Richard

    Some will, where do you think the replacements will magically appear from.

    Ones willing to take on A&E are already rarer than Rocking Horse Sh*t

    The NHS cannot afford to lose anymore right now.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381
    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Today Wind

    Next Week Tax Credits

    Oh dear I see a big reaction from Dave.

    More Lords more cost Methinks.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    BJO A vacuum will always be filled.. if they don't want to work for the NHS and the Tand C then they have to move on...in other words get out of the effin way..It is their career..their choice..do the job or move..
  • BJO A vacuum will always be filled.. if they don't want to work for the NHS and the Tand C then they have to move on...in other words get out of the effin way..

    Who will replace them?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    So it is Clinton vs: somebody (assuming, for the moment, that the Democratic party are slightly more sensible than the Labour party and are not going to choose a geriatric socialist who has never had an original idea or done anything energetic or useful in his life).

    Clinton v. Bush Mark II? Not inspiring.

    Clinton v. Trump? Terrifying.

    Clinton v. Rubio? Could be interesting.

    What odds are available for this being the lowest ever turnout at a presidential election? 49% in 1996 is the record to beat. I would say that if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate there would be value in that bet if it is longer than 2-1.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Has anyone bothered to check the Lords conflict of interest... I bet that a lot of them have a vested interest in the subsidies continuing..
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,746
    OT "Suffragettes" is a very watchable film. it's strange looking back that there was so much opposition to women voting.

    ........Driving I could understand
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    More Lords more cost Methinks.

    There seem to be a rather stubborn caucus of people who think the tories' win at the last election was some sort of aberration, and they have the right to defy a democratically elected government.

    Presumably on the basis the electorate had no idea what they were doing.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    Isn't it more like 75%?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Roger said:

    OT "Suffragettes" is a very watchable film. it's strange looking back that there was so much opposition to women voting.

    ........Driving I could understand

    :lol:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    BJO A vacuum will always be filled.. if they don't want to work for the NHS and the Tand C then they have to move on...in other words get out of the effin way..

    Dear Richard
    One in 4 Junior Dr posts are already vacant.

    The NHS is only keeping afloat due to the goodwill of the Drs that cover extra shifts at NHS rates and is suffering already by having to pay higher Locum Rates for those that cant be filled.

    I suggest you spend a few days in a hospital trying to fill the shifts of the vacant posts to see how silly your comments are.

    Love

    BJO
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    Number who voted for the lords??? the junior doctors??? the unions??? the commentariat???

    zero.
  • Clinton 1.6 on Betfair for Iowa, where she has the polling lead and has not polled behind in a while.

    DYOR
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Isn't it more like 75%?

    A contemptible position from those who would have been happy with a labour SNP stitch up, with SNP voting on English matters.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,499
    That's a very dystopian picture.

    Mr. Roger, you are awful. But I like you.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    BJO..SUNIL I was at one tIme a very aggressive Union negotiator..so I have experience of how it all works ...I can assure you that the spaces will be filled..in the meantime the Junior Docs should get out of the way...or come to terms with reality..Lotsa docs in the world..
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,746
    edited October 2015

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many voted Lib Dem? Do the LD MP's use Uber these days?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381
    Jonathan said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    Isn't it more like 75%?
    and of the 25% that did I am pretty sure100% thought Tax Credits were to be frozen not cut.

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    edited October 2015
    ydoethur said:

    So it is Clinton vs: somebody (assuming, for the moment, that the Democratic party are slightly more sensible than the Labour party and are not going to choose a geriatric socialist who has never had an original idea or done anything energetic or useful in his life).

    Clinton v. Bush Mark II? Not inspiring.

    Clinton v. Trump? Terrifying.

    Clinton v. Rubio? Could be interesting.

    What odds are available for this being the lowest ever turnout at a presidential election? 49% in 1996 is the record to beat. I would say that if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate there would be value in that bet if it is longer than 2-1.

    The other bet that might be value, looking at the candidates, is on this being the first voluntary one-term presidency (i.e. a president not standing for re-election) since Chester Arthur in 1884.* If, as seems possible (and God help us all if it is) Clinton and Trump are the candidates, given how old they are there must be at least a chance neither would stand in 2024.

    Another possible bet - although a very morbid one - might be first president to die in office since 1963, although hopefully not from the same cause.

    *I am discounting those who had been vice-president before becoming President on the death of the incumbent, e.g. Coolidge and Johnson, and anyone who lost an election they fought, e.g. Bush and Carter. Arthur made a very half-hearted effort to be the Republican candidate in 1884, so if people want to be really picky the last President who avowedly only served one term from his own choice was Rutherford B. Hayes, 1877-81.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,760
    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Going to be a lot of grateful Constituency Chairmen when Cameron enobles them all....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,260

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    And 92.1% didn't vote Lib Dem. I didn't vote Tory - but I'm perfectly happy with them having a majority in the Commons.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    BJO..SUNIL I was at one tIme a very aggressive Union negotiator..so I have experience of how it all works ...I can assure you that the spaces will be filled..in the meantime the Junior Docs should get out of the way...or come to terms with reality..Lotsa docs in the world..

    Not allowed in though due to immigration rules.

    Vacuums are very expensive to fill and the NHS is already in its worst ever financial state.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The liberals and Labour think the country will be grateful to them for hindering the government in this way.

    They are wrong.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.

    A dangerous argument taffys. This one is coming from the cross-benches, although I know it is the late Michael Meacher's ex-wife who is pushing it. It's hardly a Labour measure even if a large chunk of the Labour benches are (unsurprisingly) supporting it.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    BJO Not silly at all ..If the Government want to fill Those posts it can..It would be a visa thing..If the junior Docs think they are being harshly treated then go away... it is their choice.. The rest of us will not all suddenly curl up and die..
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Going to be a lot of grateful Constituency Chairmen when Cameron enobles them all....
    Cut the number of elected politicians and flood Parliament with unelected ones.

    I am sure that will go down well.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    taffys said:

    The liberals and Labour think the country will be grateful to them for hindering the government in this way.

    They are wrong.

    How do you know?

  • BJO Not silly at all ..If the Government want to fill Those posts it can..It would be a visa thing..If the junior Docs think they are being harshly treated then go away... it is their choice.. The rest of us will not all suddenly curl up and die..

    What with... immigrants?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    BJO Not silly at all ..If the Government want to fill Those posts it can..It would be a visa thing..If the junior Docs think they are being harshly treated then go away... it is their choice.. The rest of us will not all suddenly curl up and die..

    Famous last words!!
  • Hillary Clinton is as fit for the US Presidency as Victoria Beckham is for Manchester United's right wing.
    The Republicans would love to face this frightful woman.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''This one is coming from the cross-benches, although I know it is the late Michael Meacher's ex-wife who is pushing it. It's hardly a Labour measure even if a large chunk of the Labour benches are (unsurprisingly) supporting it. ''

    What is dangerous is defying a new government with a fresh mandate by adhering to policies that were decisively rejected in a free and fair election.

    As their Lordships will soon discover.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099
    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.

    Tories should really govern with a bit more humility if they know what's good for them. They are in danger of believing their own hype.

    They are missing the LDs.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    edited October 2015
    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Tories should really govern with a bit more humility if they know what's good for them. They are in danger of believing their own hype.''

    Like many labourites, you simply can't accept May 2015 can you. The electorate were just stupid right? they can't want tory policies, surely, because their betters such as you have already decided they are the wrong policies.

    Suck it up
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the latter they will win.

    I would have thought they would stand a better chance with Rubio. But maybe I'm biased because I don't like or rate Trump. I mean, how difficult can it be to throw away vast sums of money you inherit from your father so that you end up as only a billionaire?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,572
    edited October 2015
    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the latter they will win.

    Surely that should read. If the Republicans choose the latter they will "win".

    Technically they will "In office, but not in power" (C) John Major.

    Trump will be a law unto himself.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Going to be a lot of grateful Constituency Chairmen when Cameron enobles them all....
    Calling @JohnO

    Time to stand and be counted
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    Sunil The right sort of immigrants..lots of them out there . the Junior Docs need to take a couple of steps back on this or some of them will not be employed at all..and all their probs will be over..no satisfying career with a good salary ..job for life..good pension..opportunity for advancement..or the dole..
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    BJO Not silly at all ..If the Government want to fill Those posts it can..It would be a visa thing..If the junior Docs think they are being harshly treated then go away... it is their choice.. The rest of us will not all suddenly curl up and die..

    What with... immigrants?
    Richard clearly in favour of more immigration.

    Currently can only recruit from EU.

    Pakistani Doctors were much better IMO but not allowed currently
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    ydoethur said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the latter they will win.

    I would have thought they would stand a better chance with Rubio. But maybe I'm biased because I don't like or rate Trump. I mean, how difficult can it be to throw away vast sums of money you inherit from your father so that you end up as only a billionaire?
    I made a mistake. I think Rubio would do much better than Trump.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574
    ydoethur said:

    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.

    A dangerous argument taffys. This one is coming from the cross-benches, although I know it is the late Michael Meacher's ex-wife who is pushing it. It's hardly a Labour measure even if a large chunk of the Labour benches are (unsurprisingly) supporting it.
    Not any more - she's withdrawn and the LibDems are putting it forward
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    ydoethur said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the latter they will win.

    I would have thought they would stand a better chance with Rubio. But maybe I'm biased because I don't like or rate Trump. I mean, how difficult can it be to throw away vast sums of money you inherit from your father so that you end up as only a billionaire?
    I made a mistake. I think Rubio would do much better than Trump.
    It did seem a strange thing for you to write! However, all is forgiven.

    And I agree entirely. If Clinton faces off against Rubio, this election is the Republicans' to lose.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 9,099
    taffys said:

    ''Tories should really govern with a bit more humility if they know what's good for them. They are in danger of believing their own hype.''

    Like many labourites, you simply can't accept May 2015 can you. The electorate were just stupid right? they can't want tory policies, surely, because their betters such as you have already decided they are the wrong policies.

    Suck it up

    Nope. Quite the reverse. I saw what governing with a majority on such a low mandate did to Labour 2005-10. If the Tories know what's good for them they will realise that they are NOT popular despite winning under FPTP.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    How do you know?

    Fair enough, I can;t know. But I think many people will see that a government that has won an election has a perfect right to implement a programme in the first instance, whether you agree with that programme or not.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Every time the Medical Profession scream more ..more ..more money..the Gov of the day caves in and yet here on PB we hear the NHS is in dire financial straits..again...I wonder why.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574

    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
    [snip]
    posted for the four-hundredth-and-umpeenth time.

    Yes, Sunil, we know.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Nope. Quite the reverse. I saw what governing with a majority on such a low mandate did to Labour 2005-10. If the Tories know what's good for them they will realise that they are NOT popular despite winning under FPTP.''

    Not for the first time, you are sounding more like the worried tory chairman in a marginal than a labour supporter.

    This concern for the tories to do well in 2020 intrigues me...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 46,102
    ydoethur said:

    So it is Clinton vs: somebody (assuming, for the moment, that the Democratic party are slightly more sensible than the Labour party and are not going to choose a geriatric socialist who has never had an original idea or done anything energetic or useful in his life).

    Clinton v. Bush Mark II? Not inspiring.

    Clinton v. Trump? Terrifying.

    Clinton v. Rubio? Could be interesting.

    What odds are available for this being the lowest ever turnout at a presidential election? 49% in 1996 is the record to beat. I would say that if Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate there would be value in that bet if it is longer than 2-1.

    It will be higher than the 49% for Clinton v Dole. ABC poll today has Trump increasing his lead for GOP nomination followed by Carson. Crucially most Republicans polled thought Trump was their best general election candidate. The nomination is Trump's to lose
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381

    Every time the Medical Profession scream more ..more ..more money..the Gov of the day caves in and yet here on PB we hear the NHS is in dire financial straits..again...I wonder why.

    Because we havent trained enough, have pulled up the borders to non EU Drs, have a system designed by Lansley that makes life in A&E a permanent place of hell where nobody wants to work?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
    [snip]
    posted for the four-hundredth-and-umpeenth time.

    Yes, Sunil, we know.
    400th?

    Sunil you approach my EICIPM repetition record.

    Pack it in
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,381
    taffys said:

    How do you know?

    Fair enough, I can;t know. But I think many people will see that a government that has won an election has a perfect right to implement a programme in the first instance, whether you agree with that programme or not.

    Even if they implement measures they specifically ruled out in the campaign?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574

    taffys said:

    How do you know?

    Fair enough, I can;t know. But I think many people will see that a government that has won an election has a perfect right to implement a programme in the first instance, whether you agree with that programme or not.

    Even if they implement measures they specifically ruled out in the campaign?
    Yes. You vote for representatives not delegates.

    If you don't like what they do you vote against them at the next election
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BJO When I talk about the Gov filling the vacuum then they will.. It only takes a visa change..I have always been in favour of immigrants..the right ones..that will benefit the country and not the ones who come here for the benefits...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,128

    Clinton 1.6 on Betfair for Iowa, where she has the polling lead and has not polled behind in a while.

    DYOR

    Good spot.
  • if we're filling the lords up, surely the time is right for Lord Ave-it
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662

    taffys said:

    How do you know?

    Fair enough, I can;t know. But I think many people will see that a government that has won an election has a perfect right to implement a programme in the first instance, whether you agree with that programme or not.

    Even if they implement measures they specifically ruled out in the campaign?
    All governments do BJO. Remember Labour's cast iron guarantee not to raise tuition fees in 2001? That got them the support of the NUS (well - it was the official reason anyway) but to anyone with half a brain who was at university it was obvious that it was a pledge they would break at some point.

    It was therefore a trifle depressing so many of my fellow students fell for it...it didn't say much for the minimum standards of common sense among my peers!
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BJO No one in their right mind would want to work in A and E..unfortunately it is one of the rungs in the ladder.. every professional career has them and they are just part of the process..get in there do a bloody good job and then move on.. Everybody who chases a career has to do that..Why not Junior Docs or do they all think they are Consultants already..
  • BJO..SUNIL I was at one tIme a very aggressive Union negotiator..so I have experience of how it all works ...I can assure you that the spaces will be filled..in the meantime the Junior Docs should get out of the way...or come to terms with reality..Lotsa docs in the world..

    Not allowed in though due to immigration rules.

    Vacuums are very expensive to fill and the NHS is already in its worst ever financial state.
    Why do you think that is BJO?

    Mismanagement, too many layers of managers on big salaries, huge pension liabilities particularly those that choose to retire at a ludicrously young age? Those same people then rehired on huge daily contracts? PFI? How about mass immigration and the fact they now have to cope with much bigger numbers?

    Are any of those factors or is it just Lansley?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Jonathan said:

    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.


    They are missing the LDs.
    I doubt it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    watford30 said:

    Jonathan said:

    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.


    They are missing the LDs.
    I doubt it.

    Well, they didn't miss too many back in May... :wink:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,499
    Mr. Doethur, or to increase income tax.

    Or that we'd get a referendum over Lisbon.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Boom tish!
    ydoethur said:

    watford30 said:

    Jonathan said:

    taffys said:

    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!

    Untrue.

    One thing is certain. The voters decisively rejected economic stewardship by the party that is blocking the measures of a democratically elected government.

    So stand aside.


    They are missing the LDs.
    I doubt it.

    Well, they didn't miss too many back in May... :wink:
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,710

    Jonathan said:

    Isn't it more like 75%?

    and of the 25% that did I am pretty sure100% thought Tax Credits were to be frozen not cut.
    So basically 0% of voters voted for Tax Credit Cuts!!!
    Are you saying, Mr Owls, that the Tories came into office on the basis of a fraudulent prospectus?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,662
    edited October 2015

    Mr. Doethur, or to increase income tax.

    Or that we'd get a referendum over Lisbon.

    Ah, but Mr Dancer, you must remember that they only promised us a referendum on the European Constitution. The Lisbon Treaty was a Constitutional Treaty, which is entirely different. There were five vital full stops in different places and it was not translated into Cornish.

    EDIT - Actually, rather an aside but over Lisbon I was reminded of the specious arguments used by unions in the 1970s to justify not demanding equal pay for men and women. In one notorious case, men were making shoes in one part of the factory, and women were making shoes in another part of the same factory. According to the law at the time, if men and women did the same work, they were paid the same money. But a union rep said with a straight face that this was not the same work - the men were making men's shoes, the women were making women's shoes, and the work was totally different so the women should be paid less (because we all know women are much less picky about their footwear than men, who demand high heels and decorations and special polishes and so on, so that's really skilled work). In 1980, law was changed to be 'work of equal pay for work of equal value.'
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,128

    BJO..SUNIL I was at one tIme a very aggressive Union negotiator..so I have experience of how it all works ...I can assure you that the spaces will be filled..in the meantime the Junior Docs should get out of the way...or come to terms with reality..Lotsa docs in the world..

    Not allowed in though due to immigration rules.

    Vacuums are very expensive to fill and the NHS is already in its worst ever financial state.
    Why do you think that is BJO?

    Mismanagement, too many layers of managers on big salaries, huge pension liabilities particularly those that choose to retire at a ludicrously young age? Those same people then rehired on huge daily contracts? PFI? How about mass immigration and the fact they now have to cope with much bigger numbers?

    Are any of those factors or is it just Lansley?
    Walsgrave:

    'The hospital cost £440 million to build, but Projectco is guaranteed an income of £3.3 billion over 30 years, including facilities contracts.'
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Are you saying, Mr Owls, that the Tories came into office on the basis of a fraudulent prospectus?''

    What you and Mr Owls think about that is completely irrelevant. As is the opinion of the undemocratic Lords. That will be for the electorate to judge and decide between now and 2020.

    What is certain is that the manifestos of many of those voting the government down were decisively rejected.

    Maybe it will emerge the government is being held up by liberal democrat lords whose party was atomised at the last election, and who have no business adhering to policies that were extremely unpopular, and remain so.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,572
    edited October 2015
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
    [snip]
    posted for the four-hundredth-and-umpeenth time.

    Yes, Sunil, we know.
    Worth a thread I think!

    twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960

    BTW: Far less than four hundred and umpteenth time, actually! :P
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    BJO..One thing the Junior Docs..and some others ..never seem to learn..you can never conduct a winning or successful campaign when you are standing outside the gate....and someone else is now doing your old job...
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
    [snip]
    posted for the four-hundredth-and-umpeenth time.

    Yes, Sunil, we know.
    400th?

    Sunil you approach my EICIPM repetition record.

    Pack it in
    Naught but Tory hyperbole from posho Charles!!!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,460

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    BJO..One thing the Junior Docs..and some others ..never seem to learn..you can never conduct a winning or successful campaign when you are standing outside the gate....and someone else is now doing your old job...

    Yep. But they have the support of both Consultants and GPs if they do walk out.

    In similar strikes there is emergency cover. It will hit mostly planned work. The aim will be to crash political (waiting times) and financial targets. No patient harmed but maximum difficulty for the government.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,489

    BJO..One thing the Junior Docs..and some others ..never seem to learn..you can never conduct a winning or successful campaign when you are standing outside the gate....and someone else is now doing your old job...

    Yep. But they have the support of both Consultants and GPs if they do walk out.

    In similar strikes there is emergency cover. It will hit mostly planned work. The aim will be to crash political (waiting times) and financial targets. No patient harmed but maximum difficulty for the government.
    "No patient harmed."

    Do you really believe that?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    JackW said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    You must be over-joyed Jack by the Canadian result. This'll mean that Canada signs up to Kyoto once again - an issue I know that you are concerned about.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    BJO..One thing the Junior Docs..and some others ..never seem to learn..you can never conduct a winning or successful campaign when you are standing outside the gate....and someone else is now doing your old job...

    Yep. But they have the support of both Consultants and GPs if they do walk out.

    In similar strikes there is emergency cover. It will hit mostly planned work. The aim will be to crash political (waiting times) and financial targets. No patient harmed but maximum difficulty for the government.
    "No patient harmed."

    Do you really believe that?
    We shall see. Many will be inconvenienced.

    I really do think the vote will go for a strike, even the usually apathetic ones are apoplectic.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,679
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pauly said:

    "Government defeat in Lords over on shore wind subsidies
    Peers have voted 242 to 190, majority 52, to scrap government plans to end onshore wind subsidies early despite claims it was a breach of the Salisbury Convention."

    The HoL is going to be a massive nuisance for the a few months isn't it...

    Remember that 63.1% did not vote CON on May 7th

    How many people voted for members of the House of Lords?
    [snip]
    posted for the four-hundredth-and-umpeenth time.

    Yes, Sunil, we know.
    Charles - Did I see you in the TV pictures of last night's banquet?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,574

    JackW said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    You must be over-joyed Jack by the Canadian result. This'll mean that Canada signs up to Kyoto once again - an issue I know that you are concerned about.

    be nice, Mike
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,128

    JackW said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    You must be over-joyed Jack by the Canadian result. This'll mean that Canada signs up to Kyoto once again - an issue I know that you are concerned about.

    Touche.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,397
    Roger said:

    OT "Suffragettes" is a very watchable film. it's strange looking back that there was so much opposition to women voting.

    ........Driving I could understand

    LOL very good.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,214
    edited October 2015
    I think it'll be close whoever the GOP chooses because voters are fed up with getting either a Clinton or a Bush.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Can anyone point me to any mention of preserving tax credits in the Tory manifesto?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,214
    Well done to the House of Lords for supporting onshore windfarms which the majority of people support.
  • Can anyone point me to any mention of ABOLISHING tax credits in the Tory manifesto?

    Corrected it for you :)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Meanwhile in Turkey, a suggestion from the Turkish that IS open a Consulate in Istanbul:

    https://barnabasfund.org/news/Editorial-Turkey-exposed?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,128
    AndyJS said:

    Well done to the House of Lords for supporting onshore windfarms which the majority of people support.

    I'm not their biggest fan, but they're a better idea than the monstrosity of Hinkley.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    To The Junior Docs..you will not win this one..as the little Labour lad said..there aint no money..and watch out for the sudden influx of qualified docs from the rest of the world.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,460
    edited October 2015

    JackW said:

    I think that it is Clinton versus Rubio or Trump. If the Republicans choose the former they will win.

    EDITED

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President Of The United States

    You must be over-joyed Jack by the Canadian result. This'll mean that Canada signs up to Kyoto once again - an issue I know that you are concerned about.

    My dear Mike I'm always overjoyed at the ability of the great unwashed to topple their putative masters.

    More specifically the huge uplift in Liberal voters across the pond has engaged the hierarchy of Auchentennach Fine Pies to consider opportunities in Canada - Maple syrup moose pies .... and extras !!

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Can anyone point me to any mention of ABOLISHING tax credits in the Tory manifesto?

    Corrected it for you :)
    They promised to bring the welfare bill under control. I, rather sensibily as it turns out, assumed that that meant getting rid of the ridiculous tax credit system. Didn't you?
  • AndyJS said:

    Well done to the House of Lords for supporting onshore windfarms which the majority of people support.

    Says who?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,214

    AndyJS said:

    Well done to the House of Lords for supporting onshore windfarms which the majority of people support.

    Says who?
    Most opinion polls IIRC.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,572
    edited October 2015

    Can anyone point me to any mention of ABOLISHING tax credits in the Tory manifesto?

    Corrected it for you :)
    They promised to bring the welfare bill under control. I, rather sensibily as it turns out, assumed that that meant getting rid of the ridiculous tax credit system. Didn't you?
    "Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups" :)

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,562
    Off topic, I'm not seeing an easy way back for the Canadian Conservatives:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-numbers-1.3281210

    http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/results-2015/

    Everything we thought would happen in May 2015 in this country this year happened there: record turnout, centre-left voters uniting behind the challenger, new voters voting overwhelmingly for the Left, and the Tories defeated even though they held their base vote steady.

    Oh, and the polls were almost bang-on - just slightly underticking the Tory vote share.

    I haven't done a marginals analysis - is this available anywhere? - but count only six ultra-marginal near misses for the Conservatives. And it could have been even worse - the Liberals came close in a further 13 seats.

    They will probably need a good 5% swing, and to knock a good 50 seats off the Liberals to have a chance to regain power next time.

    It's not a 1997 style wipe-out, but a pretty clear defeat. They must expand their voter base.
Sign In or Register to comment.