Boris Johnson, a quitter not a fighter? – politicalbetting.com

System

Boris Johnson, a quitter not a fighter? – politicalbetting.com

I can see why Smarkets have put this market up, I can see why people might want to back either side. On the Yes side I can see a by election being triggered by Boris Johnson wanting to earn millions outside the glare of parliament and the register of members’ financial interests, wanting an elegant way of doing a chicken run to a safer seat, or scandal.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Test

IshmaelZ

Trace

ydoethur

IshmaelZ said:

Trace

Are you positive?

IshmaelZ

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

Trace

Are you positive?

That's the feedback I am getting

Sandpit

Yes, Johnson will be the Baliff and Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds before the end of September.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Yes, Johnson will be the Baliff and Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds before the end of September.

The poor Chiltern Hundreds...

BartholomewRoberts

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?

Nah that was a lie, which was called out here at the time.

NI goes into the general taxation pot, same as any other tax. If NI tax rise is reversed, then the funding will come from the general pot still.

The real reason NI was put up was to fund an Income Tax cut, transferring taxation from all income to only earnt incomes, so providing a tax cut for those not working for a living.

Cancelling Rishi's planned Income Tax cuts will fund reversing the NI tax hike he put in place.

OnlyLivingBoy

The chicken run point is a good one. It will look well dodge if he simply swaps seats at the next GE. But if he bows out now he can make a triumphant return to politics, either at the next GE or at a separate byelection, back by popular acclamation to save the true Brexit or whatever horseshit he comes up with. Plus outside parliament there will be a lot less scrutiny over his finances - he can top up his cash reserves doing gigs he wouldn't really want to be public knowledge.
It seems likely to me that he will cut and run, although I think his political career will be far from over. Unfortunately.

Tres

I reckon he'll hang around in the commons until the next ge because he doesn't want to do the exact same thing as his bete noire Cameron.

ydoethur

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

Trace

Are you positive?

That's the feedback I am getting

Well, that's a result for you.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, Johnson will be the Baliff and Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds before the end of September.

The poor Chiltern Hundreds...

The incumbent is a child sex offender, so even Johnson would be an improvement.

ydoethur

Tres said:

I reckon he'll hang around in the commons until the next ge because he doesn't want to do the exact same thing as his bete noire Cameron.

If he does, however, he does the exact same thing as May.

DecrepiterJohnL

Rishi a point shorter for next prime minister than for next party leader.

Betfair next prime minister
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
9 Rishi Sunak 11%

Next Conservative leader
1.11 Liz Truss 90%
10 Rishi Sunak 10%

Tres

ydoethur said:

Tres said:

I reckon he'll hang around in the commons until the next ge because he doesn't want to do the exact same thing as his bete noire Cameron.

If he does, however, he does the exact same thing as May.

No - May is still an MP.

ydoethur

Tres said:

ydoethur said:

Tres said:

I reckon he'll hang around in the commons until the next ge because he doesn't want to do the exact same thing as his bete noire Cameron.

If he does, however, he does the exact same thing as May.

No - May is still an MP.

Well, 'hangs on' then.

If he stays until the next GE he follows the example of Brown, Major and (more propitiously) Thatcher.

HYUFD

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kyf_100 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.

Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.

Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.

We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.

You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.

Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.

If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.

Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.

Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.

We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already

Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.

Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.

Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.

There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average

Categorically wrong, native population is growing.

10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.

House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.

Once you take account of native population deaths our population is declining without immigration.

Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem

Not true.

10.79 births > 9.07 deaths.

If births > deaths then population grows.

For population to fall then deaths must be greater than births.

House price ratios in the North now are higher than they were anywhere in the entire country, including London, a generation ago.

MISTY

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

By then his main rival may be a Kemi with the extra gravitas of a senior cabinet post.

Some tussle, that.

DecrepiterJohnL

I agree with the header: Boris will either stay or leave. One of those two.

The privacy argument does not stand up, imo. Boris was relaxed about others knowing about his Telegraph salary. And staying to be called back once Truss flops must be tempting. Against that, retirement would shut down the select committee investigations, and imo Boris planned to stand down in 2024 anyway.

BartholomewRoberts

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Stuartinromford

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

That being the case, does PM Truss go out of her way to discredit him?

Let everyone see That Wallpaper?

Quietly make it clear to Conservatives on the Privileges Committee that loyalty to the former PM shouldn't stop them investigating without fear?

StuartDickson

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

occasionalranter

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

U OK hun ? DM me.

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kyf_100 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.

Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.

Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.

We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.

You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.

Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.

If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.

Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.

Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.

We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already

Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.

Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.

Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.

There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average

Categorically wrong, native population is growing.

10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.

House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.

Once you take account of native population deaths our population is declining without immigration.

Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem

Not true.

10.79 births > 9.07 deaths.

If births > deaths then population grows.

For population to fall then deaths must be greater than births.

House price ratios in the North now are higher than they were anywhere in the entire country, including London, a generation ago.

Deaths outnumbered births last year actually in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57600757.amp

Property prices in London were cheap a generation ago before it became a global city so that means little

BartholomewRoberts

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

If you don't like a political betting website discussing political betting, the door is over there. 👉

Maybe you were looking for butchersapronranting.com instead?

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

The only thing keeping people on the cable (or satellite) is live sports. When they start going to online services, there will be an almighty rush for the exit.

In the States, ESPN/Disney are paying the lion’s share of a $10bn/year NFL deal, a decade into the future, in an attempt to shore up the cable-watching base. Amazon have got their foot in the NFL door though, it will be worth watching how that develops over time. In the UK, Sky’s share of the Premier League is around £3bn a season.

Stuartinromford

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?

Nah that was a lie, which was called out here at the time.

NI goes into the general taxation pot, same as any other tax. If NI tax rise is reversed, then the funding will come from the general pot still.

The real reason NI was put up was to fund an Income Tax cut, transferring taxation from all income to only earnt incomes, so providing a tax cut for those not working for a living.

Cancelling Rishi's planned Income Tax cuts will fund reversing the NI tax hike he put in place.

The thing that's upended everything is that the threshold freeze (cheeky at the best of times) is utterly brutal now.

In theory, there's a lot of space for give with one hand/take with the other shenanigans. In practice, a lot of that is going to go on the increased costs of running government services.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Neither you nor Johnson get it.

He has been defenestrated as an out of touch chancer, patron to, and of scoundrels and is now considered a national security threat.

StuartDickson

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

HYUFD

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Neither you nor Johnson get it.

He has been defenestrated as an out of touch chancer, patron to, and of scoundrels and is now considered a national security threat.

So arguably is Trump but he is still a contender for 2024 as most of the GOP base still support him

BartholomewRoberts

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kyf_100 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.

Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.

Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.

We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.

You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.

Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.

If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.

Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.

Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.

We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already

Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.

Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.

Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.

There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average

Categorically wrong, native population is growing.

10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.

House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.

Once you take account of native population deaths our population is declining without immigration.

Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem

Not true.

10.79 births > 9.07 deaths.

If births > deaths then population grows.

For population to fall then deaths must be greater than births.

House price ratios in the North now are higher than they were anywhere in the entire country, including London, a generation ago.

Deaths outnumbered births last year actually in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57600757.amp

Property prices in London were cheap a generation ago before it became a global city so that means little

Those figures are out of date and from two years ago, at the height of the pandemic. Births exceed deaths now and normally.

Property prices were normal a generation ago, that is what we should be getting back to now, by building enough houses. Your utter obsession with London doesn't answer the fact that prices are too high in the entire country and a crash relative to earnings is needed.

turbotubbs

Manchester United. That is all.

Leon

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

It's 26C without a cloud in the sky, here in London. I think most people have better things to do than arse about on PB. And that includes me. Off to the parks. Later

StuartDickson

occasionalranter said:

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

U OK hun ? DM me.

I do all my anti-hun business in full public view.

turbotubbs

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

Even more Manchester United. Simply hilarious.

BartholomewRoberts

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

No its not all.

turbotubbs

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

No its not all.

It is now...

kinabalu

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?

Nah that was a lie, which was called out here at the time.

NI goes into the general taxation pot, same as any other tax. If NI tax rise is reversed, then the funding will come from the general pot still.

The real reason NI was put up was to fund an Income Tax cut, transferring taxation from all income to only earnt incomes, so providing a tax cut for those not working for a living.

Cancelling Rishi's planned Income Tax cuts will fund reversing the NI tax hike he put in place.

Funded by borrowing really. But anyway from PT - We can compromise. I'm ok with saying tax cuts "put more money in people's pockets".

StuartDickson

Leon said:

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

It's 26C without a cloud in the sky, here in London. I think most people have better things to do than arse about on PB. And that includes me. Off to the parks. Later

Have a lovely time with your frisbee, rizlas and teensy-weensy shoes.

kinabalu

turbotubbs said:

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

Even more Manchester United. Simply hilarious.

Are they "still on the beach"?

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

No its not all.

Laughing at Man United, that’s Gross.

SeaShantyIrish2

Sandpit said:

Yes, Johnson will be the Baliff and Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds before the end of September.

OR just as possible that BJ could be the Crown Bailiff and Steward of the Manor of Northstead.

Best be careful of the wording of any particular bet BEFORE you puts your money down!

StuartDickson

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

If you don't like a political betting website discussing political betting, the door is over there. 👉

Maybe you were looking for butchersapronranting.com instead?

There is a difference between political betting and pseudo political betting.

LostPassword

OnlyLivingBoy said:

The chicken run point is a good one. It will look well dodge if he simply swaps seats at the next GE. But if he bows out now he can make a triumphant return to politics, either at the next GE or at a separate byelection, back by popular acclamation to save the true Brexit or whatever horseshit he comes up with. Plus outside parliament there will be a lot less scrutiny over his finances - he can top up his cash reserves doing gigs he wouldn't really want to be public knowledge.
It seems likely to me that he will cut and run, although I think his political career will be far from over. Unfortunately.

That's what I've been thinking - temporarily quitting Parliament also dodges the standards inquiry.

I'm not convinced that he will return. He may want to, but it might be something where the time is never quite right, or the opportunity doesn't present itself.

CorrectHorseBattery

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

HYUFD

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kyf_100 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

I see that Sunak has said it's wrong for Truss to cut his National Insurance tax hike, so people who work many of whom are seeing wages go up less than inflation can keep more of their own money, as he thinks we should do more to support Triple Locked pensioners instead.

Sunak represents everything that is wrong with the modern Conservative Party. If he wins, the Party deserves to lose.

Add that to his green belt nimbyism when what we really need is houses, houses, houses.

We do not need houses, houses, houses in the already overheated South-East, nor do we need more high-rise flats in London as Rishi proposes. We need to spread prosperity throughout the country, to make levelling up more than a slogan, and to build new homes and even new towns with new employers in the less affluent parts of the country.

You do need houses, houses, houses all over the country including the South East. The South East like the entire country has seen its population dramatically rise in a generation thanks to longer life expectancies and net immigration. That should not be be a bad thing but housing hasn't kept up so many people can't get a home of their own.

Unless you want to start major net emigration we need more housing for the people already living here to get a home of their own. North, South, East and West.

If you want to have any immigration at all, which is a very good thing in my eyes to have I don't know about you, then we need even more housing just to stand still let alone sort out the backlog of missing homes.

Net migration is a red herring, whether up or down. Internal migration should be encouraged: that's the point. It is also what happened during the industrial revolution, and after the war with new towns being built. There's nothing new here. Move people, and jobs, and economic activity and prosperity around the country.

Internal migration is a herring. Homes, homes, homes are needed because the population of the country has risen by about 10 million people in a generation and is still rising fast and the housing supply hasn't kept up. You can't solve that with a few soothing words about spreading prosperity, we need a massive and sustained increase in housing supply to address the shortage and to then stand still with rising population levels.

We also need tighter immigration controls to reduce demand. The biggest shortage of affordable housing is in London by far that is where most new property needs to be built, through high rise in particular. In the North East or most of the West Midlands there is plenty of affordable housing already

Tighter immigration controls won't reduce demand, just slow the increase in demand. Demand will still be there, and rising, unless we have net emigration surpassing the rate of native population growth to reduce demand.

Houses are needed either way. There is not plenty of affordable housing anywhere, there are housing shortages across the entire country which is why new homes are being built in the North and Midlands as they're needed just as they are in the South too.

Native population growth is already below replacement level, the UK birth rate is only 1.65 per woman. It is rising immigration that is pushing up demand.

There is not the same need for affordable housing in the North and Midlands, Wales, NI and Scotland, average house prices there are less than half the price of those in the South. There is also in turn not the same need for new affordable housing in the South as in London, house prices in London are a 1/3 higher than those in the South on average

Categorically wrong, native population is growing.

10.79 births/1000 population and 9.07 births/1000 population = growing population even without immigration.

House prices to earnings ratios are too high in the entire country.

Once you take account of native population deaths our population is declining without immigration.

Once you exclude the distortion of London from house price to earnings ratios North of Watford there is not really a problem

Not true.

10.79 births > 9.07 deaths.

If births > deaths then population grows.

For population to fall then deaths must be greater than births.

House price ratios in the North now are higher than they were anywhere in the entire country, including London, a generation ago.

Deaths outnumbered births last year actually in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57600757.amp

Property prices in London were cheap a generation ago before it became a global city so that means little

Those figures are out of date and from two years ago, at the height of the pandemic. Births exceed deaths now and normally.

Property prices were normal a generation ago, that is what we should be getting back to now, by building enough houses. Your utter obsession with London doesn't answer the fact that prices are too high in the entire country and a crash relative to earnings is needed.

No they aren't, they are the latest figures available. If we had a high birthday the death rate would still be less than it is despite Covid and Covid is not going away, especially for the unvaccinated and over 80s.

Property prices were cheap a generation ago because we were a strike ridden, nationalised industry dominated economy and Canary Wharf had yet to have been built and London was not a global city. That is not going to change however many houses we build unless fewer foreigners want to come to London ir we further tighten immigration controls.

Outside of London and certainly north of Watford there is no housing problem of any significance, most locals can easily afford to but in Stoke, Bishop Auckland etc hence in part why they now have Tory MPs.

A crash just leaves to negative equity which as the 1992 to 1997 Tory government discovered is equally disastrous

HYUFD

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

Eabhal

StuartDickson said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

If you don't like a political betting website discussing political betting, the door is over there. 👉

Maybe you were looking for butchersapronranting.com instead?

There is a difference between political betting and pseudo political betting.

Both domains are available

turbotubbs

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

But you can’t just extrapolate a trend to infinity, yes they have shed customers, but the basic model isn’t broken.

StuartDickson

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

The only thing keeping people on the cable (or satellite) is live sports. When they start going to online services, there will be an almighty rush for the exit.

In the States, ESPN/Disney are paying the lion’s share of a $10bn/year NFL deal, a decade into the future, in an attempt to shore up the cable-watching base. Amazon have got their foot in the NFL door though, it will be worth watching how that develops over time. In the UK, Sky’s share of the Premier League is around £3bn a season.

I’ve already exited. In fact our entire family have. We rarely watch “tv”. Well, we occasionally look at a big screen, but goodness knows what percentage of the time is “tv”? Perhaps 2%?

As far as live sports is concerned, my general philosophy is that sport is for participation and not for observation, so I almost never observe it, and neither does anyone else in the household. My exception is cycling, and even there exclusively road racing. The Eurosport/GCN subscription satisfies 80% of my big screen needs. I’m too embarrassed to tell you what the other 20% consists of.

LostPassword

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

Netflix aren't the only subscription service that is losing customers - it's to be expected post-pandemic and with households looking to trim costs. They produce a lot of content, although they've lost some of the back-catalogue stuff as some of the content owners have started their own subscription services.

They have a chance to survive, if they're well-run, and produce films and shows that people want to watch. But I do expect there will be a shake-out at some point, and not all the streaming services will survive.

StuartDickson

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.

Sandpit

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sandpit said:

Yes, Johnson will be the Baliff and Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds before the end of September.

OR just as possible that BJ could be the Crown Bailiff and Steward of the Manor of Northstead.

Best be careful of the wording of any particular bet BEFORE you puts your money down!

I did actually check that one, the Chiltern Hundreds has the next vacancy! Either would satisfy this market though, which is on a by-election taking place in the constituency.

The black swan, would be the bet falling by the new PM calling an immediate general election.

StuartDickson

Liz Truss 70%+ 7.2

Looks value still.

Dynamo

FPT - Archie Battersbee case - these links are for those including "I hate chavs, me" types who prefer to concentrate on a single case rather than on the issue of what social media use and social media companies are doing to children:

"A STREAKING Southend Utd fan has been banned from her favourite club". That was Ms Hollie Dance 10 years ago. And from nearly 20 years ago: "Southend: Road rage woman spared prison". And here's one from 2014: "Boy, four, suffers agonising burns after Boots pharmacy gave him ear drops for his eye infection". (Note that Boots admitted fault and apologised.) I wouldn't be surprised if she has had members of the state-sector "professional" classes up to a distance of about 20 miles from Southend nodding with contempt-filled "knowingness" about her for many years.

HYUFD

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.

No complacency, the future of the Union is reserved to the UK government and Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Tory governments could refuse indyref2 for 100 years and sod all the SNP could do to challenge the Union.

IshmaelZ

Dynamo said:

FPT - Archie Battersbee case - these links are for those including "I hate chavs, me" types who prefer to concentrate on a single case rather than on the issue of what social media use and social media companies are doing to children:

"A STREAKING Southend Utd fan has been banned from her favourite club". That was Ms Hollie Dance 10 years ago. And from nearly 20 years ago: "Southend: Road rage woman spared prison". And here's one from 2014: "Boy, four, suffers agonising burns after Boots pharmacy gave him ear drops for his eye infection". (Note that Boots admitted fault and apologised.) I wouldn't be surprised if she has had members of the state-sector "professional" classes up to a distance of about 20 miles from Southend nodding with contempt-filled "knowingness" about her for many years.

I don't think this site is very interested. I strongly doubt you found those links by a direct search, you got them off another site which specialises in that sort of thing. So why not discuss them there?

Andy_JS

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

An alternative course of action for him would be to support Kemi Badenoch as next leader, assuming he agrees with her policies, which I'm not sure he does.

tlg86

The ref is still United's star performer. Not going to stop United getting beat.

StuartDickson

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.

No complacency, the future of the Union is reserved to the UK government and Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Tory governments could refuse indyref2 for 100 years and sod all the SNP could do to challenge the Union.

The future of the Union depends on the consent of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nations.

No consent = no union

StuartDickson

Latest Irish poll

Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent

Sinn Féin 36% (nc)
Fine Gael 22% (nc)
Fianna Fáil 17% (+2)
Greens 4% (nc)
People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (+1)
Social Democrats 4% (+1)
Labour 3% (-1)
Aontú 3% (nc)
others/independents 9% (-1)

turbotubbs

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.

No complacency, the future of the Union is reserved to the UK government and Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Tory governments could refuse indyref2 for 100 years and sod all the SNP could do to challenge the Union.

The future of the Union depends on the consent of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nations.

No consent = no union

Last time Scotland was asked, it consented. Did you get a vote?

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

Is it? Last quarter their churn rate had already stabilsed. Also, Netflix is the only major streaming service that actually makes money. The rest are all varying degrees of loss making, including D+.

Where Netflix has already won is they borrowed very, very cheaply. Something their rivals aren't going to be able to do.

Sandpit

.

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

StuartDickson said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

Do you really think that the Union would survive an Oaf second term?

Easily as long as he continued to refuse indyref2

I love the smell of Unionist complacency in the morning.

No complacency, the future of the Union is reserved to the UK government and Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998. Tory governments could refuse indyref2 for 100 years and sod all the SNP could do to challenge the Union.

The future of the Union depends on the consent of the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh nations.

No consent = no union

The English and Welsh seem happy, the Scots affirmed their happiness in 2014 and the Northern Irish in 1998.

Union.

noneoftheabove

Andy_JS said:

HYUFD said:

Boris will stay as Prince across the Water. If his successor slips up then he will pounce. He still was the preferred choice over both Truss and Sunak in polls of 2019 Tory voters and Tory members

An alternative course of action for him would be to support Kemi Badenoch as next leader, assuming he agrees with her policies, which I'm not sure he does.

Is her policy to let Boris do whatever he likes and get massive plaudits and attention whilst doing so? I doubt he cares about much else.

Sandpit

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

How many hot women much money is available?

noneoftheabove

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

Sandpit

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

moonshine

Another night last night of cock teasing about the Finland and still no follow through from anyone supposedly in the know. Is there not some combo of words we can Google that is free from defamation risk?

Dynamo

FPT

Just a quick thank you to @IshmaelZ for the following info:

"But then you switched to white. East India Company had its own flag, red n white stripes with Union flag top left".

Interesting, those stripes. Thirteen of them, too. What were those freemasons up to? :-) I am currently reading "The Devil’s Cloth: A History of Stripes & Striped Fabric" by Michel Pastoureau. (He's the guy who has also written histories of red and other colours.) Having checked in the index, I don't think he mentions the EIC. There's clearly a big semiotic difference between the tricolour - any tricolour - and the multiple use of only two colours...

Dura_Ace

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Johnson is a socially liberal lower case g green so, while he is a venal fantasist, he is not really CPAC's type of venal fantasist in the way frogface is.

CorrectHorseBattery

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

But you can’t just extrapolate a trend to infinity, yes they have shed customers, but the basic model isn’t broken.

Their model is broken.

They cannot support their lack of content because they're losing customers. They need original content to undo the content they're losing year on year to other services. They cannot keep up.

Not a chance they will be around in 10 years, probably get bought I would think.

CorrectHorseBattery

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62453813

Liz Truss not ruling out emergency payments, says Penny Mordaunt

Totally liability.

Dynamo

Dynamo said:

FPT

Just a quick thank you to @IshmaelZ for the following info:

"But then you switched to white. East India Company had its own flag, red n white stripes with Union flag top left".

Interesting, those stripes. Thirteen of them, too. What were those freemasons up to? :-) I am currently reading "The Devil’s Cloth: A History of Stripes & Striped Fabric" by Michel Pastoureau. (He's the guy who has also written histories of red and other colours.) Having checked in the index, I don't think he mentions the EIC. There's clearly a big semiotic difference between the tricolour - any tricolour - and the multiple use of only two colours...

A question for politics mavens: what political parties, anywhere in the world, use striped livery?

ydoethur

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62453813

Liz Truss not ruling out emergency payments, says Penny Mordaunt

Totally liability.

Mordaunt, Truss or the National Debt?

turbotubbs

CorrectHorseBattery said:

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

But you can’t just extrapolate a trend to infinity, yes they have shed customers, but the basic model isn’t broken.

Their model is broken.

They cannot support their lack of content because they're losing customers. They need original content to undo the content they're losing year on year to other services. They cannot keep up.

Not a chance they will be around in 10 years, probably get bought I would think.

If the model is broken, who buys? Wait for them to fold then pick up the content.
We’ll see. Personally think broadcast (I.e. live) TV is under more threat. Talking about you BBC.

CorrectHorseBattery

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62453813

Liz Truss not ruling out emergency payments, says Penny Mordaunt

Totally liability.

Mordaunt, Truss or the National Debt?

All of the above

noneoftheabove

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

ydoethur

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

He'd be ineligible to be president, what other office might be of interest?

rottenborough

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

noneoftheabove

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

He'd be ineligible to be president, what other office might be of interest?

Governor jobs or Mayor of New York both would appeal but would he be ineligible? And the US courts only test eligibility if he wins, the question of Ted Cruz being a natural-born citizen is open but does not stop him running and fundraising hundreds of millions.

MaxPB

CorrectHorseBattery said:

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

But you can’t just extrapolate a trend to infinity, yes they have shed customers, but the basic model isn’t broken.

Their model is broken.

They cannot support their lack of content because they're losing customers. They need original content to undo the content they're losing year on year to other services. They cannot keep up.

Not a chance they will be around in 10 years, probably get bought I would think.

But that's no longer true because for the last 5 years Netflix borrowed billions of dollars to build out a first party library to which they own the perpetual rights. All of the third party content that is going to leave has already gone and if anything we're going to see that reverse over the next few years because services like Paramount+ and Peacock are going to fail which means Paramount and NBC will have to start putting content on Netflix again and just taking the annual lump sum from Netflix if they agree and the price is right.

We've already seen the start of the consolidation, HBO Max has been canned. It's now being "merged" into Discovery+ but all of the original streaming only content is being killed and essentially it will just be HBO programming and boxsets under a HBO tab within Discovery+, that is not going to compete with Netflix or Disney+ (the two likely survivors of the streaming wars).

The other big deal for Netflix is that in 5 years they will have 10 years worth of original content in the library, while I don't think it has as much value as most people, it will be a bigger pull factor. The biggest missing piece of the puzzle, IMO, is not having a theatrical window. That's where Disney+ has a huge leg up on Netflix. Their movies still go out and recoup production costs in cinemas and then 84 days later they put it on their streaming service which is pure profit for bringing in new subscribers.

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

ydoethur

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

He'd be ineligible to be president, what other office might be of interest?

Governor jobs or Mayor of New York both would appeal but would he be ineligible? And the US courts only test eligibility if he wins, the question of Ted Cruz being a natural-born citizen is open but does not stop him running and fundraising hundreds of millions.

The catch is he would have to take out naturalisation and the SC has in the past said anyone who has to go through such a ceremony is ineligible to be president.

Whether the fact he was once a dual national would affect that is as you note rather unclear but I think there would be sufficient doubt to eliminate him from consideration.

Besides 'I was a US citizen, gave it up to reduce my taxes and got it back because I'm a stupid egomaniac who wants to be president' isn't a great political narrative.

Stuartinromford

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

What's the gain for him then?

Either PM Truss wins in 2024, in which case Boris is a flaky backbencher, or Starmer becomes PM and Boris runs for LotO with little hope of a proper comeback until 2028ish.

Both of those look far too much like hard work. If BoJo wants to try for Operation Lazarus, he needs to be an MP for the next eighteen months or so.

noneoftheabove

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

He'd be ineligible to be president, what other office might be of interest?

Governor jobs or Mayor of New York both would appeal but would he be ineligible? And the US courts only test eligibility if he wins, the question of Ted Cruz being a natural-born citizen is open but does not stop him running and fundraising hundreds of millions.

The catch is he would have to take out naturalisation and the SC has in the past said anyone who has to go through such a ceremony is ineligible to be president.

Whether the fact he was once a dual national would affect that is as you note rather unclear but I think there would be sufficient doubt to eliminate him from consideration.

Besides 'I was a US citizen, gave it up to reduce my taxes and got it back because I'm a stupid egomaniac who wants to be president' isn't a great political narrative.

What is the mechanism that eliminates him from consideration at the running and fund raising stage?

A decade ago I would not have thought Trump had a great political narrative either, but these days the more outlandish and above the rules you can be, the better.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

What's the gain for him then?

Either PM Truss wins in 2024, in which case Boris is a flaky backbencher, or Starmer becomes PM and Boris runs for LotO with little hope of a proper comeback until 2028ish.

Both of those look far too much like hard work. If BoJo wants to try for Operation Lazarus, he needs to be an MP for the next eighteen months or so.

In that case, why bother changing seats at all?

No_Offence_Alan

BartholomewRoberts said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning everybody.
I thought part of the rise in national insurance costs was to assist with care costs. How does Ms Truss propose to deal with those?

Nah that was a lie, which was called out here at the time.

NI goes into the general taxation pot, same as any other tax. If NI tax rise is reversed, then the funding will come from the general pot still.

The real reason NI was put up was to fund an Income Tax cut, transferring taxation from all income to only earnt incomes, so providing a tax cut for those not working for a living.

Cancelling Rishi's planned Income Tax cuts will fund reversing the NI tax hike he put in place.

Wow! So we can just fund anything we like from proposing a tax cut, but not actually doing it?

Sunil_Prasannan

ydoethur said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

Is that enough time to regain his US citizenship somehow, then he would not be foreign.......

That’s the last thing he’d want to do - be forced to pay tax on his worldwide annual earnings to Uncle Sam every year.

I’m pretty sure that, having renounced citizenship, it’s renounced for life with no way back.

It is not easy to get back but not impossible. Someone who lives outside the normal rules may well succeed fast tracking it all. And the lure is US politics and the money, attention and frankly simply "The Game" that comes with it.

He'd be ineligible to be president, what other office might be of interest?

Post Office?

Sandpit

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

turbotubbs said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Netflix won't exist in 10 years time.

What makes you say that?

I'm with Horse on this.
It was a great product when there was only one of it. Like membership of Blockbuster video, only with a much, much wider choice. But now there are half a dozen players - you simply can't have a subscription to all of them. It's daft, and prohibitively expensive. There can't be more than one Netflix, and the chances that Netflix are the best at being Netflix seem no better than about one in six.

No chance for Netflix with Disney+ having more than half of all content produced, without overheads of licensing to external companies

Alternatively many people will happily pay for both Netflix and Disney+ as we already do ourselves. Netflix + Disney+ combined costs much less than Sky and about the same as the BBC too and provides much more that we use than either Sky or BBC do.

In America that's even more true. The cost of "cable" TV in the USA has long been far more than even multiple subscriptions now cost.

Netflix is losing customers at a ridiculous pace.

They will not be around in 10 years, not enough content.

But you can’t just extrapolate a trend to infinity, yes they have shed customers, but the basic model isn’t broken.

Their model is broken.

They cannot support their lack of content because they're losing customers. They need original content to undo the content they're losing year on year to other services. They cannot keep up.

Not a chance they will be around in 10 years, probably get bought I would think.

If the model is broken, who buys? Wait for them to fold then pick up the content.
We’ll see. Personally think broadcast (I.e. live) TV is under more threat. Talking about you BBC.

Netflix and BBC would actually be a really interesting partnership. Global reach, known brands, and possibly the world’s biggest content library stretching back decades.

Leon

moonshine said:

Another night last night of cock teasing about the Finland and still no follow through from anyone supposedly in the know. Is there not some combo of words we can Google that is free from defamation risk?

If you look really really hard - like, say, a hungry eagle spying a marmot on a crag - you can find it all online. But remember. Mum’s the word

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

Re: Farage at CPAC in Florida, does anyone doubt that Boris Johnson is going to be their foreign star turn next year?

I doubt it, if you listened to Farage's speech he said Boris was trailing and Scott Morrison lost as they weren't conservative and anti woke enough.

While he also hailed Trump and the Trumpite candidates who won their primaries last week

HYUFD

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

What's the gain for him then?

Either PM Truss wins in 2024, in which case Boris is a flaky backbencher, or Starmer becomes PM and Boris runs for LotO with little hope of a proper comeback until 2028ish.

Both of those look far too much like hard work. If BoJo wants to try for Operation Lazarus, he needs to be an MP for the next eighteen months or so.

Being Leader of the Opposition can be a fairly easy gig if you want it to be, just oppose the government and wait for it to slip up

Stuartinromford

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

What's the gain for him then?

Either PM Truss wins in 2024, in which case Boris is a flaky backbencher, or Starmer becomes PM and Boris runs for LotO with little hope of a proper comeback until 2028ish.

Both of those look far too much like hard work. If BoJo wants to try for Operation Lazarus, he needs to be an MP for the next eighteen months or so.

In that case, why bother changing seats at all?

Good question. From a Conservative point of view, no Uxbridge, no majority.

It saves him the personal embarrassment of fighting a seat and losing I guess, but that's it.

Casino_Royale

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62453813

Liz Truss not ruling out emergency payments, says Penny Mordaunt

Totally liability.

One advantage of Liz Truss is that she'll prove to be very politically flexible in her views.

Casino_Royale

StuartDickson said:

What a duff thread.

Palsy-walsy Smarkets have blah, blah, blah… god this blogging lark is tedious sometimes… must remember to take down Sean’s “adult” link… when’s Smithson back from his holidays?… yawn… am I still pretending to be a “lawyer” this week?… that Smarkets market has zilch liquidity and is really just bollox… no one will notice as they’ll all be off spotting squirrels within 4 posts…

Why don't you start your own blog then?

RochdalePioneers

turbotubbs said:

Manchester United. That is all.

#TenHagOut

Leon

SCORCHIO

Stuartinromford

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Isn't Johnson's plan to take Nadine's seat in Bedford once he has bumped her up to the Lords?

24k majority.

I don't think that will work so far from a general election. If she were elevated in the Dissolution Honours and he were adopted as the candidate it would be different but right now the Liberal Democrats would massacre him. And the Tories would lose Uxbridge as well.

Doesn't mean he won't do it because he's very fucking stupid, but he'd be better to wait and see who's retiring at the next election to try and pick up a safe seat elsewhere. John Howell, his successor in Henley, is a possibility, as is Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. Or indeed, Dorries herself would have been.

What's the gain for him then?

Either PM Truss wins in 2024, in which case Boris is a flaky backbencher, or Starmer becomes PM and Boris runs for LotO with little hope of a proper comeback until 2028ish.

Both of those look far too much like hard work. If BoJo wants to try for Operation Lazarus, he needs to be an MP for the next eighteen months or so.

Being Leader of the Opposition can be a fairly easy gig if you want it to be, just oppose the government and wait for it to slip up

It is easy, but it's also impotence, irrelevance and people at parties asking you what Chris Mason is like in real life.