Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Trump continues to dominate the GOP nomination polls

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Donald Trump continues to dominate the GOP nomination polls

It’s now a week and a half on from the first Republican nominee debate of the 2016 campaign – an event that delivered for Fox News its biggest audience of all time. Normally at this stage in a White House very few people are concerned with the minutiae of nomination battles and TV debate audiences are measured in hundreds of thousands not tens of millions.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015
    First ?

    Is this an echo of what we were seeing in the UK with Corbyn. The other candidates are eyeing Trumps voters, expecting Trump to implode at some point, and not wanting to offend his supporters unduly in case they transfer their vote to someone else.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,881
    As a big fan of both the actress and singer Bette Midler, and the movie Twelve Angry Men, this tweet really did make me laugh.
    Twitter
    Bette Midler ‏@BetteMidler 6 hrs6 hours ago
    Donald Trump has jury duty tomorrow. Well, that's one angry man - now they just need 11 more.
  • Trump provides a bit of a shield for the other candidates. Until the time when he inevitably implodes, that's so much less scrutiny for Bush, Walker, et al.
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    "That’s why the critics and doom-mongers are all wrong, because what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy.

    That’s why we should back him wholeheartedly, when he becomes the leader of the Labour party, because what he offers is so powerful; because hope, and change, is what we all need and yearn for, regardless of our colour, creed, or political leanings."
    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)
  • It may not have done Trump any harm with the narrow share of the electorate that continues to back him, but he hardly helped his case by alienating party elites and FOX News. Those voices are going to matter a lot more as the actual vote approaches, while polls are pretty much meaningless this far out. I agree about Bush's price being way too high though.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598
    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    I'm increasingly warming up to the idea of Corbyn as Labour leader, even if only temporarily. Let him clear out the miserable Labour front bench and give some fresh faces some visibility, let him motivate the base and boost the membership, provide some principled opposition to the government, and he can bow out after a year or two if the polling looks bad.

    And in any subsequent leadership election, any new leader will look like Mussolini relative to Corbyn, and hopefully Labour will find some more inspiring candidates than the current lot (Dan Jarvis perhaps?).

    Of course, all that requires the Blairites not to take their ball and go home in the meantime.

    I'll be pretty content with ABK (Anyone But Kendall) though, so it's unlikely I'll be too disappointed.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited August 2015
    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited August 2015

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    One interesting side-effect of Labour getting all these supporters for the leadership election is that they will all be put into Labour's campaign database for the next election. This could potentially be a massive help when it comes to fund-raising, campaigning, get out the vote etc. Even if not all of those registered supporters are die-hard Labour, I suspect most are Labour voters and the overwhelming majority have a left-wing bent (contrary to any beliefs about masses of right-wing "infiltrators").
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,942

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Where's that Independent from 1999 predicting snow would never again be seen in Britain? Always an effective way to give one the titters.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited August 2015

    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.

    I feel the same about Carly Fiorina. Her singular "achievement" was running HP into the ground and making herself a ton of money in the process.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,443

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,443
    fitalass said:

    As a big fan of both the actress and singer Bette Midler, and the movie Twelve Angry Men, this tweet really did make me laugh.
    Twitter
    Bette Midler ‏@BetteMidler 6 hrs6 hours ago
    Donald Trump has jury duty tomorrow. Well, that's one angry man - now they just need 11 more.

    Don't you feel sorry for the accused - and the judge come to that.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,515
    edited August 2015
    Oliver_PB said:

    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.

    I feel the same about Carly Fiorina. Her singular "achievement" was running HP into the ground and making herself a ton of money in the process.
    Morning. Yes Fiorina is a lay in my book, as are Trump and Clinton. Only small stakes though, there's nearly a year before this pays out. 11 months is a very long time indeed in US politics.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Looks like the BBC Songs of Praise in Calais was a bit of a car crash. Serves them right for politicing on the license payers dime imo.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3200315/Songs-Praise-Calais-migrant-camp-NO-songs-DAMIAN-THOMPSON-BBC-stunt-gone-wrong.html
    How many hymns did the worshippers of St Michael’s sing in Songs of Praise? None. Not a single verse. In fact, not a single note.

    Did this have something to do with the fact that Father Hagos Kesete, the Eritrean priest who runs St Michael’s, had reacted furiously to the Songs of Praise stunt, claiming that filming would endanger his family’s lives back home in Eritrea? The cameras had no right to be in the camp, he insisted.

    Sally talked to Nima from Ethiopia, a Christian who admitted trying to enter the UK. ‘Do you believe it’s right to go illegally to a country?’ she asked. ‘It’s not right, but what are we supposed to do?’ came the reply. Sally left it at that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,099
    Difficult to disagree with Mike's analysis. Bush should be among the favourites but not to the extent of being near evens. Likewise, while Trump will probably implode at some point in the next six or seven months, there's no doubt that he has momentum and his support is real. Both prices should move to reflect that.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,830
    Mike is right that Trump's campaign has impressive resilience, and the looseness of party affiliation in the US makes it easier for him to draw in unaffiliated voters who like the cut of his jib. That said, I think there is a strong anti-Trump GOP vote out there (cf. TimT saying he'd even rather vote for Sanders) which is being masked by the size of the field. One or two rivals will eventually eclipse the others and I doubt if Trump can break 30%.

    FPT AndyJS: "I think visiting Disneyland is one of those things in life which often exceeds expectations. I expected it to be a glorified funfair but everything is done with such a spirit of enthusiasm and perfection that you can't help be impressed by it."

    Yes, exactly. I must be in the 99th percentile of the target audience - I don't like any Disney characters, or cartoons, or mass-marketing, or (much) scary rides. But I still thought it was great - that American enthusiasm and positivity that transcends political differences bubbles up and everything is so well done that one just suspends reservations and enjoys the feeling.

    And yes, Rod's probably right that I dodged a bullet on May 7. Life is fun, and I've not felt that for a while.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Madasafish, quite, you can't trust anyone willing to ignore facts or reason in the face of their ideological zealotry.

    Mr. Mohammed, welcome to pb.com.
  • OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    "That’s why the critics and doom-mongers are all wrong, because what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy.

    That’s why we should back him wholeheartedly, when he becomes the leader of the Labour party, because what he offers is so powerful; because hope, and change, is what we all need and yearn for, regardless of our colour, creed, or political leanings."
    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Trump has the money to stay to the end and if he wins New Hampshire becomes favourite. Republicans picked moderates the last two elections and lost and the base may want someone different this time. In 1964 Goldwater won the nomination despite establishment opposition
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Oliver_PB said:

    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.

    I feel the same about Carly Fiorina. Her singular "achievement" was running HP into the ground and making herself a ton of money in the process.
    Donald Trump's comment about Fiorina made me appreciate his appeal a bit more.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    In the last thread header, the screaming Eagles used the term 'trading bet'... Lots of people do so when talking about backing a big price, but I don't get it really. Isn't every bet a trading bet? Or are there certain bets that you let run to settlement no matter what?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    HYUFD said:

    Trump has the money to stay to the end and if he wins New Hampshire becomes favourite. Republicans picked moderates the last two elections and lost and the base may want someone different this time. In 1964 Goldwater won the nomination despite establishment opposition

    Jeb's problem is that he's such a boring candidate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,329
    Not sure of DH's latest article has been posted, it makes for grim reading for the Labour Party.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11805916/Labour-MPs-are-now-preparing-to-go-underground-to-resist-the-Corbyn-regime.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    isam said:

    In the last thread header, the screaming Eagles used the term 'trading bet'... Lots of people do so when talking about backing a big price, but I don't get it really. Isn't every bet a trading bet? Or are there certain bets that you let run to settlement no matter what?

    "trading bets" are those that you are fairly sure won't be winners if held to maturity (e.g. Trump for President) but where there might be value if you buy and sell at the right time.

    It's slightly different from, for example, going long UKIP seats at the GE, but then laying off risk as you change your mind
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,410

    Rod's probably right that I dodged a bullet on May 7. Life is fun, and I've not felt that for a while.

    A sentiment I think we can all agree with!

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    If current opinion polls are to be believed, 50-53% of the voters support Conservatives and UKIP which means 55% -58% in England. Can anyone see Corbyn making inroads into these voters? If you own property and/or have right wing values, what appeal does Corbyn hold?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097

    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].

    I backed Corbyn at 550-1 and laid at 300-1 to get my £2 back.

    I went in again at 1.4 for a hundred quid, if I'd backed again (£2) instead of laying at 300s, I'd have doubled my current book profit on him. Every price should be considered on it's merits at the time... 1.4 is probably a still a big price given what we know at the moment.

    Your previous bets shouldn't matter if you are looking at betting in the purest sense, the fact you placed a bet on Corbyn at 150-1 previously is irrelevant - it is whether you feel his chance of becoming next Labour leader is greater than 72% NOW that should determine whether you are a layer or backer.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    Mr PB,

    "I'm increasingly warming up to the idea of Corbyn as Labour leader, even if only temporarily. Let him clear out the miserable Labour front bench and give some fresh faces some visibility, let him motivate the base and boost the membership, provide some principled opposition to the government, and he can bow out after a year or two if the polling looks bad."

    A friend of mine has the same view.

    The big danger for the Tories is that Jezza 'refreshes' the Labour party and drops dead about six months before the GE, ensuring a wave of sympathy for the new leader that sweeps him from 10 points behind to 10 points ahead.

    The obituaries are always kind.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    CD13 said:

    Mr PB,

    "I'm increasingly warming up to the idea of Corbyn as Labour leader, even if only temporarily. Let him clear out the miserable Labour front bench and give some fresh faces some visibility, let him motivate the base and boost the membership, provide some principled opposition to the government, and he can bow out after a year or two if the polling looks bad."

    A friend of mine has the same view.

    The big danger for the Tories is that Jezza 'refreshes' the Labour party and drops dead about six months before the GE, ensuring a wave of sympathy for the new leader that sweeps him from 10 points behind to 10 points ahead.

    The obituaries are always kind.

    There are none so blind as those that cannot see.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Trump has the money to stay to the end and if he wins New Hampshire becomes favourite. Republicans picked moderates the last two elections and lost and the base may want someone different this time. In 1964 Goldwater won the nomination despite establishment opposition

    Jeb's problem is that he's such a boring candidate.
    Indeed voters do not want Mitt Romney 2
  • Sean_F said:

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    If current opinion polls are to be believed, 50-53% of the voters support Conservatives and UKIP which means 55% -58% in England. Can anyone see Corbyn making inroads into these voters? If you own property and/or have right wing values, what appeal does Corbyn hold?
    On the basis that most Labour MPs - including, I daresay, all four leadersip candidates, are owner-occupiers. does that make them, Sean - in your opinion, of course - crminal, insane or criminally insane?

  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited August 2015
    Charles said:

    isam said:

    In the last thread header, the screaming Eagles used the term 'trading bet'... Lots of people do so when talking about backing a big price, but I don't get it really. Isn't every bet a trading bet? Or are there certain bets that you let run to settlement no matter what?

    "trading bets" are those that you are fairly sure won't be winners if held to maturity (e.g. Trump for President) but where there might be value if you buy and sell at the right time.

    It's slightly different from, for example, going long UKIP seats at the GE, but then laying off risk as you change your mind
    "Trading bet" to me seem to be shorthand for 'the price will shorten and you can get out for profit', but surely that applies to every bet you have else you'd wait until the price was bigger before you had it or you wouldn't have it at all.

    It doesn't really mean anything

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,515

    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].

    I backed Corbyn for an Ayrton at 100/1, then laid him for another at 1/2 a few weeks later. One could have described the original bet as a trading bet, but in the end it should be a big thanks to PB for the Abu Dhabi F1 tickets fund being a grand richer than expected!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    isam makes a good point about trading bets. Value bets should be held or added to, not traded. If they're value, enough of them will come home eventually. They should only be traded when the price runs ahead of the true odds.

    A true trading bet is one where you think the price is right (or even poor) but where you think it will nevertheless shorten, allowing you to sell it for a profit to a bigger fool.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    edited August 2015

    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    "That’s why the critics and doom-mongers are all wrong, because what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy.

    That’s why we should back him wholeheartedly, when he becomes the leader of the Labour party, because what he offers is so powerful; because hope, and change, is what we all need and yearn for, regardless of our colour, creed, or political leanings."
    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
    That opens a serious question about use of information. The canvassing data was never collected in order to use their voting intentions to exclude them from a labour party leadership election.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721
    edited August 2015
    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    I think i have accidentally joined labour somehow, pressed the wrong part of the screen on my phone or something...I got an email saying thanks for joining anyway!

    And now ive received this vote for yvette video email... Bizarre

    http://www.yvetteforlabour.co.uk/campaignvideo
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,848

    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.

    Perhaps the good Mr Salmond could explain.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Indigo said:

    Looks like the BBC Songs of Praise in Calais was a bit of a car crash. Serves them right for politicing on the license payers dime imo.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3200315/Songs-Praise-Calais-migrant-camp-NO-songs-DAMIAN-THOMPSON-BBC-stunt-gone-wrong.html

    How many hymns did the worshippers of St Michael’s sing in Songs of Praise? None. Not a single verse. In fact, not a single note.

    Did this have something to do with the fact that Father Hagos Kesete, the Eritrean priest who runs St Michael’s, had reacted furiously to the Songs of Praise stunt, claiming that filming would endanger his family’s lives back home in Eritrea? The cameras had no right to be in the camp, he insisted.

    Sally talked to Nima from Ethiopia, a Christian who admitted trying to enter the UK. ‘Do you believe it’s right to go illegally to a country?’ she asked. ‘It’s not right, but what are we supposed to do?’ came the reply. Sally left it at that.
    The BBC does not like songs of praise and would like to get rid of it. It wants to prosthelytize it world view using the camp as an excuse and so it uses the songs of praise slot as a convenient method. My view may be wrong of course but unfortunately I do not have £5bn to spend promoting it.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    notme said:

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
    That opens a serious question about use of information. The canvassing data was never collected in order to use their voting intentions to exclude them from a labour party leadership election.
    How is anti-Labour defined? There are many PBers who have changed party allegiance over the years and at election time.

    If Labour wants to discourage people who were not happy under TB, GB and EDM, then fine, but they are reducing Labour to a small group of like-minded. But are they like-minded - does one CLP agree with another CLP what anti-Labour means?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,616
    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].

    I backed Corbyn at 550-1 and laid at 300-1 to get my £2 back.

    I went in again at 1.4 for a hundred quid, if I'd backed again (£2) instead of laying at 300s, I'd have doubled my current book profit on him. Every price should be considered on it's merits at the time... 1.4 is probably a still a big price given what we know at the moment.

    Your previous bets shouldn't matter if you are looking at betting in the purest sense, the fact you placed a bet on Corbyn at 150-1 previously is irrelevant - it is whether you feel his chance of becoming next Labour leader is greater than 72% NOW that should determine whether you are a layer or backer.
    ^what pulpstar said...

    Your book/previous bets/trades simply don't matter when assessing the current value in the odds.

    Basically, you should only ever cashout when the value shifts over to the other side of the bet.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    dr_spyn said:

    I completely fail to understand the appeal of Donald Trump.

    Perhaps the good Mr Salmond could explain.
    Totally agree - but like JC he could attract people because he does not speak and act like a professional politicians.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2015
    Financier said:

    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    "That’s why the critics and doom-mongers are all wrong, because what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy.

    That’s why we should back him wholeheartedly, when he becomes the leader of the Labour party, because what he offers is so powerful; because hope, and change, is what we all need and yearn for, regardless of our colour, creed, or political leanings."
    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,281
    edited August 2015
    As it is now almost time to vote, I spent a bit of time reflecting at the weekend. My conclusion - what the heck, go for it, Vote Corbyn. Sh!t or bust.

    However, I did also conclude that if Priti was running for the Labour leadership, she would certainly get my first preference. But you probably all knew that anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Rentool, what if she becomes Conservative leader? Would she tempt you to the dark side?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    As it is now almost time to vote, I spent a bit of time reflecting at the weekend. My conclusion - what the heck, go for it, Vote Corbyn. Sh!t or bust.

    However, I did also conclude that if Priti was running for the Labour leadership, she would certainly get my first preference. But you probably all knew that anyway.

    I do like... 'whats the worst that can happen'...

    It can always get worse.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
    But is not the point that they were anti labour because Labour was not fruit loop lefty enough for them?
    Put it this way - would the tories welcome 500,000 new members who were effectively neo nazis? Nigel Farage can hoover them up.
    What use are 500,000 crypto communists to Labour?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,974

    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...

    Mandelson’s intervention was, I must admit, quite a surprise as it’s not like him to emerge from the shadows. He must be desperate to save as many Blairites as possible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Slackbladder, are you suggesting Jeremy Corbyn is the human avatar of a Dr. Pepper advert?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,443
    notme said:

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
    That opens a serious question about use of information. The canvassing data was never collected in order to use their voting intentions to exclude them from a labour party leadership election.
    He didn't say they were being excluded and was only talking about Exeter.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    edited August 2015
    Mr Rentool,

    "However, I did also conclude that if Priti was running for the Labour leadership, she would certainly get my first preference. But you probably all knew that anyway."

    So at heart, you're just a shallow male?

    Edit: Mrs Danczuk for deputy?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-2809685/Top-25-self-entrepreneurs-started-small-sums-money.html

    Not exactly a bunch of crooks are they? But all started from very smalls sums and come from modest backgrounds.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:

    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    In those communist societies, there was certainly no equality and also no fairness. The Members of the CP were given luxuries and the rest of the population were treated like slaves. That is not just an example of the failure of the communist system, but also an example of human greed and when in absolute power of cruelty towards your fellow mankind.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,281

    Mr. Rentool, what if she becomes Conservative leader? Would she tempt you to the dark side?

    Never! But I would take a keen interest in PMQs...
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    notme said:

    "We may be witnessing a new chapter in British political history. The Labour Party now has more than 600,000 members and registered supporters – a base that no other party can compete with. It is a mass movement that could sweep Labour back into power in 2020."
    The Sion Simon of 2015

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/we-need-to-change-labour-so-we-can-change-the-country-10457385.html

    Ben Bradshaw on R4 today saying that 10% of new members in Exeter had canvas returns from previous elections indicating that they were strongly anti-Labour (still leaves 90% though).
    That opens a serious question about use of information. The canvassing data was never collected in order to use their voting intentions to exclude them from a labour party leadership election.
    He didn't say they were being excluded and was only talking about Exeter.
    Correct - but in any event what would be wrong about somehow making use of the information? Its not as if it was obtained subversively. As for ''still leaving 90%'' - who knows what their views are - they may not have been canvassed.

    Regular readers may recall that I always say changing leaders is a very dangerous time for a political party - but I never dreamed it could be this deadly. But then again even I never dreamed that Labour MPs could be this stupid.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,281
    CD13 said:

    Mr Rentool,

    "However, I did also conclude that if Priti was running for the Labour leadership, she would certainly get my first preference. But you probably all knew that anyway."

    So at heart, you're just a shallow male?

    Edit: Mrs Danczuk for deputy?

    I do actually admire Priti as a politician. Always appears in command of what she says, and believes in what she is saying too. I have been singing her praises since I first saw her doing a paper review back in 2010. I was hoping that Liz would be Labour's equivalent, but she just doesn't cut it.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited August 2015

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

  • Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?
  • Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    Mr Rentool,

    Don't worry, I wasn't serious.

    It's always a bonus when the pretty ones can do the job. You can put me in the shallow male category.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598

    Mike is right that Trump's campaign has impressive resilience, and the looseness of party affiliation in the US makes it easier for him to draw in unaffiliated voters who like the cut of his jib. That said, I think there is a strong anti-Trump GOP vote out there (cf. TimT saying he'd even rather vote for Sanders) which is being masked by the size of the field. One or two rivals will eventually eclipse the others and I doubt if Trump can break 30%.

    FPT AndyJS: "I think visiting Disneyland is one of those things in life which often exceeds expectations. I expected it to be a glorified funfair but everything is done with such a spirit of enthusiasm and perfection that you can't help be impressed by it."

    Yes, exactly. I must be in the 99th percentile of the target audience - I don't like any Disney characters, or cartoons, or mass-marketing, or (much) scary rides. But I still thought it was great - that American enthusiasm and positivity that transcends political differences bubbles up and everything is so well done that one just suspends reservations and enjoys the feeling.

    And yes, Rod's probably right that I dodged a bullet on May 7. Life is fun, and I've not felt that for a while.

    Pleased to hear you're enjoying yourself, Nick. I mean that sincerely!
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...

    Mandelson’s intervention was, I must admit, quite a surprise as it’s not like him to emerge from the shadows. He must be desperate to save as many Blairites as possible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html
    ''it emerged that four unions – including Unite and the RMT train drivers’ union – have donated nearly or lent nearly £100,000 to Mr Corbyn’s so-called “crowd sourced” leadership campaign;''

    Did Brown realise when he was making his desperate speech (delivered with an almost Tourette Syndrome jerkiness) he was name checking his own miserable political legacy? I think he might have since he made no attempt to make eye contact with either his local or the TV audience.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Financier said:

    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well

    "That’s why the critics and doom-mongers are all wrong, because what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy.

    That’s why we should back him wholeheartedly, when he becomes the leader of the Labour party, because what he offers is so powerful; because hope, and change, is what we all need and yearn for, regardless of our colour, creed, or political leanings."
    http://tinyurl.com/noqtod6

    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Idiot comments.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

    More idiot comments
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,936
    Morning all,

    Hodges:

    "Jeremy Corbyn is poised for victory. Across the Labour party the lights are going out. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime."
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...

    Mandelson’s intervention was, I must admit, quite a surprise as it’s not like him to emerge from the shadows. He must be desperate to save as many Blairites as possible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html
    ''it emerged that four unions – including Unite and the RMT train drivers’ union – have donated nearly or lent nearly £100,000 to Mr Corbyn’s so-called “crowd sourced” leadership campaign;''

    Did Brown realise when he was making his desperate speech (delivered with an almost Tourette Syndrome jerkiness) he was name checking his own miserable political legacy? I think he might have since he made no attempt to make eye contact with either his local or the TV audience.
    Thought GB had put on a lot of weight - too much USA fast food?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,936

    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...

    Mandelson’s intervention was, I must admit, quite a surprise as it’s not like him to emerge from the shadows. He must be desperate to save as many Blairites as possible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html
    This Labour's version of tea party antics - RINOs - or in this case LINOs.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063


    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    This guy is one of the world's richest men:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amancio_Ortega_Gaona

    His dad was a railway worker.

    Zara rank well on lists of ethical clothing brands:

    http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-fashion-blog/how-ethical-high-street-clothes
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].

    I backed Corbyn at 550-1 and laid at 300-1 to get my £2 back.

    I went in again at 1.4 for a hundred quid, if I'd backed again (£2) instead of laying at 300s, I'd have doubled my current book profit on him. Every price should be considered on it's merits at the time... 1.4 is probably a still a big price given what we know at the moment.

    Your previous bets shouldn't matter if you are looking at betting in the purest sense, the fact you placed a bet on Corbyn at 150-1 previously is irrelevant - it is whether you feel his chance of becoming next Labour leader is greater than 72% NOW that should determine whether you are a layer or backer.
    ^what pulpstar said...

    Your book/previous bets/trades simply don't matter when assessing the current value in the odds.

    Basically, you should only ever cashout when the value shifts over to the other side of the bet.
    The cashout button must be a fantastic earner for bookies - in markets such as football you get to pay the overround again !

    With the nags if you identify a bet as value then bumf it is placed, the race is run and the time period is generally too short for you to make a poor cashout.

    With politics (And test cricket !) the time horizons are a bit longer so you can have a think about the correct move at any point in time.

    In play football cashouts must be amongst the most profitable for the bookies. The event is long enough that you can reconsider a winning value bet, but not long enough that you get to have a DECENT think about it.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

    Oh come off it, half the people inside the M25 are paper millionaires and most of those have ordinary jobs. Almost anyone working as any sort of freelance consultant, or working in finance or management consultancy for example will be there easily. Even ten years ago I had a job paying over a grand a day, I would have been a millionaire in four years at that rate, but I preferred to keep my marriage intact rather than work silly hours, other people decide to go for the cash.
  • On the concept of trading bets vs letting bets run to maturity, another factor is your confidence and comfort at absorbing potential losses.

    If you eg were willing to wager a tenner and willing to lose it, backing Corbyn at 100/1 then you could lay that now at nearly a grand profit whether Corbyn wins or loses. If you didn't have any bet in this market would you be prepared to enter it now risking a thousand pounds at Corbyn's current odds? If so then let the bet ride, if you wouldn't dream of wagering a grand now at these odds then hedge and take some of your profits.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited August 2015

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    You asked it twice ;)

    I am not a kipper, but you would expect the answer to some extent depends on what Cameron does about the EUref. If he tries really hard to sell a pup to the public I can see he wont have many friends amongst the kippers. But your question is fatuous anyway, you made the same comment in effect about EdM, and would about any other Labour leader, it's a call for only two political parties because anyone flirting with a third party might let the bogeyman in. Never mind if you think both parties suck, better vote for one of them in case the other gets in.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Financier said:

    Is there anyone in labour which the new-new labouists won't rubbish?

    Ben Bradshaw just the latest in the long list of 'non-real' labour.

    Labour is eating itself.

    Edit; and I See Mandy and Brown are too as well...

    Mandelson’s intervention was, I must admit, quite a surprise as it’s not like him to emerge from the shadows. He must be desperate to save as many Blairites as possible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806498/Lord-Mandelsons-failed-mass-resignation-bid-to-attempt-to-stop-Jeremy-Corbyn-winning-Labour-leadership.html
    ''it emerged that four unions – including Unite and the RMT train drivers’ union – have donated nearly or lent nearly £100,000 to Mr Corbyn’s so-called “crowd sourced” leadership campaign;''

    Did Brown realise when he was making his desperate speech (delivered with an almost Tourette Syndrome jerkiness) he was name checking his own miserable political legacy? I think he might have since he made no attempt to make eye contact with either his local or the TV audience.
    Thought GB had put on a lot of weight - too much USA fast food?
    Or meds?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,099

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

    You don't need to take people's word for it. Just think about it: in law, consultancy, banking, engineering there are plenty of six figure salaries to go round by middle age if you're doing well at one of the top firms. And what you need to get in is to be a high academic performer, go to a Russel Group university, and pass the milk round interviews. No inheritance required. And then you have the entrepreneurs who've stumbled upon a good business idea and executed it well.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Financier said:

    OT - apologies.

    This article on Labour Uncut just about sums up Corbynism.. and Trumpism as well



    Hope is a new religion: forget the facts..

    (the same spirit as the 1930s)

    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"
    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His foll
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Wr a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Thats rubbish. The people who have over a million in assets are all round you. They are self employed builders, plumbers, they are professionals such as accountants and doctors.

    Most would have made their first couple of hundred thousand through asset appreciation in property and used that to finance other investments.

    Every school teacher will leave (assuming theyve made their annual contributions) with a pension fund not far off equivalent value of £900,000.

    A teacher!
  • Indigo said:

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    You asked it twice ;)

    I am not a kipper, but you would expect the answer to some extent depends on what Cameron does about the EUref. If he tries really hard to sell a pup to the public I can see he wont have many friends amongst the kippers. But your question is fatuous anyway, you made the same comment in effect about EdM, and would about any other Labour leader, it's a call for only two political parties because anyone flirting with a third party might let the bogeyman in. Never mind if you think both parties suck, better vote for one of them in case the other gets in.
    It appears not to be fatuous to me as it appears to me that many potential UKIP-wavers DID in fact chose to vote Conservative in the GE15 rather than risk Miliband+Salmond enter Downing Street.

    Not all by a long-shot but many and given that it happened a few months ago, it seems to me that Corbyn has the potential to be an even more divisive figure than Miliband/Salmond.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,515
    edited August 2015

    Morning all,

    Hodges:

    "Jeremy Corbyn is poised for victory. Across the Labour party the lights are going out. We may not see them lit again in our lifetime."

    Dan Hodges must have been really looking forward to the leadership election, knowing that he had been proven right over Ed and that the party would learn from the defeat, pull themselves back together and elect the moderate centrist.
    He must be pulling his hair out now.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
    You ever tried to force a west african to do anything? Good luck with that.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903

    Indigo said:

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    You asked it twice ;)

    I am not a kipper, but you would expect the answer to some extent depends on what Cameron does about the EUref. If he tries really hard to sell a pup to the public I can see he wont have many friends amongst the kippers. But your question is fatuous anyway, you made the same comment in effect about EdM, and would about any other Labour leader, it's a call for only two political parties because anyone flirting with a third party might let the bogeyman in. Never mind if you think both parties suck, better vote for one of them in case the other gets in.
    It appears not to be fatuous to me as it appears to me that many potential UKIP-wavers DID in fact chose to vote Conservative in the GE15 rather than risk Miliband+Salmond enter Downing Street.

    Not all by a long-shot but many and given that it happened a few months ago, it seems to me that Corbyn has the potential to be an even more divisive figure than Miliband/Salmond.
    Corbyn would be happy to accommodate the SNP of course. They are both equally left wing and both hate the UK and both want to destroy our nuclear deterrent.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,615

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
    Have there been many slaves in human history that haven't been compelled to work under threat? Kinda the point isn't it?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Innocent Abroad..that is very kind of you to take my word for it..but here is a list of how they earned their crust.
    A school buddy started doing small DIY jobs at weekends for pocket money..Now owns a massive DIY chain of shops in the north West
    A publisher.. saw a niche in the financial publishing world after college Died before his parents of cancer ..Multi millionaire...no inheritance money
    Two are successful film Directors..both from working class families..
    A Partner in a major London based Law company...working class Irish family background..worked his way up he ladder..by being very clever at his job.
    One owned a sound and film production company... working class.. died prematurely.. no inheritance there.
    One started a small film developing company bought out by one of the big boys..for millions... working class family..
    There are several more but I think you will find that none of them were crooks, robbed anyone, dealt in drugs, cheated or were criminal in any way... they may have collected a few speeding tickets along the way.. but hey.
    .

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
    Have there been many slaves in human history that haven't been compelled to work under threat? Kinda the point isn't it?
    But extensive supervision makes it not very efficient.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Divvie, jein. Roman slaves were sometimes horrendously abused, at other times they became practically trusted family friends, paid a wage and allowed to buy their freedom.

    Modern day slavery seems universally horrendous, whether it's people held on farms/by gypsies/in domestic servitude in the UK or the industrial scale depravity of ISIS.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,515

    On the concept of trading bets vs letting bets run to maturity, another factor is your confidence and comfort at absorbing potential losses.

    If you eg were willing to wager a tenner and willing to lose it, backing Corbyn at 100/1 then you could lay that now at nearly a grand profit whether Corbyn wins or loses. If you didn't have any bet in this market would you be prepared to enter it now risking a thousand pounds at Corbyn's current odds? If so then let the bet ride, if you wouldn't dream of wagering a grand now at these odds then hedge and take some of your profits.

    Exactly. I had no intention of getting into the leadership betting for serious money, that tenner now laid off will make me a grand if Corbyn wins and double my total £20 stake if he loses.

    I think the definition of the trading bet is one that is not intended as value for the contest itself, but rather that it's expected to shorten as the contest date approaches. I didn't think Corbyn had a chance of winning, but thought he might be 20/1 at some point.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    I would still vote UKIP
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    Sandpit said:

    On the concept of trading bets vs letting bets run to maturity, another factor is your confidence and comfort at absorbing potential losses.

    If you eg were willing to wager a tenner and willing to lose it, backing Corbyn at 100/1 then you could lay that now at nearly a grand profit whether Corbyn wins or loses. If you didn't have any bet in this market would you be prepared to enter it now risking a thousand pounds at Corbyn's current odds? If so then let the bet ride, if you wouldn't dream of wagering a grand now at these odds then hedge and take some of your profits.

    Exactly. I had no intention of getting into the leadership betting for serious money, that tenner now laid off will make me a grand if Corbyn wins and double my total £20 stake if he loses.

    I think the definition of the trading bet is one that is not intended as value for the contest itself, but rather that it's expected to shorten as the contest date approaches. I didn't think Corbyn had a chance of winning, but thought he might be 20/1 at some point.
    You'll feel sick as a pig if you end up with £20 at this point though !
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    I dislike the term "trading bet" but I do like the term "Speculative bet"... Gomis ew@40/1, Lukaku ew@20/1 Top Prem Scorer
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
    I think that was Marx himself bending reality to fit his own rigid ideological beliefs. Slavery has existed in thousands of different manifestations throughout human history. The odd prisoner of war slave in indigenous African tribes probably did not work very hard. A slave that is part of a gang system, with a whip hand behind him in a Jamaican sugar plantation, and who gets beaten if he does not cut as much sugar as the tough daily target, probably worked far harder than you or I do.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    JEO said:

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

    You don't need to take people's word for it. Just think about it: in law, consultancy, banking, engineering there are plenty of six figure salaries to go round by middle age if you're doing well at one of the top firms. And what you need to get in is to be a high academic performer, go to a Russel Group university, and pass the milk round interviews. No inheritance required. And then you have the entrepreneurs who've stumbled upon a good business idea and executed it well.
    Why waste breath and pixels on the deluded fool. He is typical of the frothing ignorant moronic nutjobs salivating over Corbyn. The living dead clawing their way up from the bowels of the earth.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598

    Indigo said:

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    You asked it twice ;)

    I am not a kipper, but you would expect the answer to some extent depends on what Cameron does about the EUref. If he tries really hard to sell a pup to the public I can see he wont have many friends amongst the kippers. But your question is fatuous anyway, you made the same comment in effect about EdM, and would about any other Labour leader, it's a call for only two political parties because anyone flirting with a third party might let the bogeyman in. Never mind if you think both parties suck, better vote for one of them in case the other gets in.
    It appears not to be fatuous to me as it appears to me that many potential UKIP-wavers DID in fact chose to vote Conservative in the GE15 rather than risk Miliband+Salmond enter Downing Street.

    Not all by a long-shot but many and given that it happened a few months ago, it seems to me that Corbyn has the potential to be an even more divisive figure than Miliband/Salmond.
    I don't want to put words in Sean's mouth but I'm pretty sure he said that he'd vote Conservative if he lived in a key marginal, or if UKIP didn't otherwise seriously feature. He would also do so in a safe Tory seat if the sitting MP was a BOO'er with socially conservative views, like Philip Hollobone.

    I think he did vote Conservative in Luton South.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr PB,

    "I'm increasingly warming up to the idea of Corbyn as Labour leader, even if only temporarily. Let him clear out the miserable Labour front bench and give some fresh faces some visibility, let him motivate the base and boost the membership, provide some principled opposition to the government, and he can bow out after a year or two if the polling looks bad."

    A friend of mine has the same view.

    The big danger for the Tories is that Jezza 'refreshes' the Labour party and drops dead about six months before the GE, ensuring a wave of sympathy for the new leader that sweeps him from 10 points behind to 10 points ahead.

    The obituaries are always kind.

    What if he doesn't want to stand down? What if he stands down and the new membership elects someone equally as left wing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,515
    edited August 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Isam, if you backed Corbyn at 150/1, you might choose to just leave it, instead of hedging [I'd hedge, but not everybody goes that way].

    I backed Corbyn at 550-1 and laid at 300-1 to get my £2 back.

    I went in again at 1.4 for a hundred quid, if I'd backed again (£2) instead of laying at 300s, I'd have doubled my current book profit on him. Every price should be considered on it's merits at the time... 1.4 is probably a still a big price given what we know at the moment.

    Your previous bets shouldn't matter if you are looking at betting in the purest sense, the fact you placed a bet on Corbyn at 150-1 previously is irrelevant - it is whether you feel his chance of becoming next Labour leader is greater than 72% NOW that should determine whether you are a layer or backer.
    ^what pulpstar said...

    Your book/previous bets/trades simply don't matter when assessing the current value in the odds.

    Basically, you should only ever cashout when the value shifts over to the other side of the bet.
    The cashout button must be a fantastic earner for bookies - in markets such as football you get to pay the overround again !

    With the nags if you identify a bet as value then bumf it is placed, the race is run and the time period is generally too short for you to make a poor cashout.

    With politics (And test cricket !) the time horizons are a bit longer so you can have a think about the correct move at any point in time.

    In play football cashouts must be amongst the most profitable for the bookies. The event is long enough that you can reconsider a winning value bet, but not long enough that you get to have a DECENT think about it.
    The Cashout button wouldn't be there if the bookies weren't making money from it. I'd say it attracts the amateur punter watching with friends in the pub, rather than the serious gambler trying to make money.

    Test cricket has been very profitable this summer, but one has to commit to watching as much of it as possible live. I'll be at hopefully two of the upcoming England v Pakistan series in UAE, will try and get some tips from the ground for the PB cricket punters. ;)

    Bets in the final Ashes Test will be £60 instead of £50, in honour of the Aus 1st innings score last time out!!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598

    Financier said:



    What also sums up Labour these days is the person who wrote it:

    "Brian Back is a sociology lecturer and Labour campaigner"

    Digging down into the piece written by Brian Back we find:

    "creating a fairer society"
    "offering a real and compelling alternative vision, of a much fairer, more equal, and happier society""
    "His followers now have a deep emotional connection to his campaign, because of their longing and yearning for hope and change; for the fairer, and altogether better society they have always dreamed of, but never thought they could have, until now."
    "what Corbyn offers, is much more attractive to voters than any carefully costed and credible economic policy"


    So how is this fairer society achieved? By state control of what one does and earns? So there is no incentive for people to work hard, create wealth and retain that wealth?

    Were does the money come from for this fairer vision and how is it created?

    When I lived under fairer society communist systems - there certainly was no equality except for the luxury lived by those privileged few at the top.

    I would not want this lecturer to teach any of my family or friends.

    Was that because the communists just weren't very good at it or because. in your mature judgment, the pursuit of fairness and equality (two rather different concepts, of course) are in themselves misguided or even morally vicious? As for "hard work" I have no idea what it is. There are plenty of people who work long hours for a pittance. Slaves, I believe, worked pretty hard. If you measure the hardness of work by the output then your argument is circular.

    It's cerainly possible to become a billionaire if you start (through inheritance) as a millionaire. But to get from poverty to millions is almost never done in a mature capitalist economy and when it is done it is almost always more or less criminal.

    Marx himself recognized that slaves don't work hard at all, unless compelled to do under threat. That's why he identified slavery as the most basic form of organised society, inferior to feudalism, never mind capitalism - the three types his work had the opportunity to analyse.
    Have there been many slaves in human history that haven't been compelled to work under threat? Kinda the point isn't it?
    They do what they must do and no more. In most cases, that was extremely hard physical labour to the point where the majority of male slaves died within 10-15 years of becoming one.

    But it's not as if they'd go the extra mile or demonstrate initiative to get that much lauded promotion.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    JEO said:

    Innocent Abroad..In my rather short list of friends I know of several who became millionaires simply by working hard at what they proved to be good at..none of them inherited any money and all are working class..none of them are crooks and all live in the UK.

    Well, I must take your word for it, I suppose. Unless they made their money in construction and/or military supply, industries that are as bent as a nine-pound-note in every country in the world.

    You don't need to take people's word for it. Just think about it: in law, consultancy, banking, engineering there are plenty of six figure salaries to go round by middle age if you're doing well at one of the top firms. And what you need to get in is to be a high academic performer, go to a Russel Group university, and pass the milk round interviews. No inheritance required. And then you have the entrepreneurs who've stumbled upon a good business idea and executed it well.
    Why waste breath and pixels on the deluded fool. He is typical of the frothing ignorant moronic nutjobs salivating over Corbyn. The living dead clawing their way up from the bowels of the earth.
    I disagree with him, but there's no need to get abusive over it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,598
    Indigo said:

    Can I ask a question to the Kippers here like Isam, SeanF etc ... hypothetically if there were a 2020 general election between a Footite Corbyn-led Labour Party and a Cameron-like Conservative party (eg led by Osborne) ... then do you think that Corbyn could make you be more tempted to vote Conservative? Or would you still vote UKIP even if you thought it would be a losing vote?

    You asked it twice ;)

    I am not a kipper, but you would expect the answer to some extent depends on what Cameron does about the EUref. If he tries really hard to sell a pup to the public I can see he wont have many friends amongst the kippers. But your question is fatuous anyway, you made the same comment in effect about EdM, and would about any other Labour leader, it's a call for only two political parties because anyone flirting with a third party might let the bogeyman in. Never mind if you think both parties suck, better vote for one of them in case the other gets in.
    Cameron will sell whatever he gets within the next 18 months as the best deal from the EU possible.

    Given his negotiating tactics and strategy, he might be right. That doesn't mean we should vote for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.