Howdy, Stranger!

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

Word up – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited March 2023 in General
Word up – politicalbetting.com

New survey design experiments by YouGov's @PME_Politics demonstrate the the importance of question framing to properly measuring public opinionSee the results on leading questions and acquiescence bias in the next tweets ?https://t.co/pqOH8s4Z9J

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,877
    Betting Post

    F1: backed Albon to win group 2 (Tsunoda, Gasly, Magnussen) at 4.6, and Sainz to win group 3 (Russell, Hamilton, Stroll) at 3.1.

    Albon would almost certainly have been above Tsunoda but for a technical problem that stopped him running in Q2 and looked competitive. Sainz starts ahead of the rest of his group and is often a little overlooked. Suspect the Ferrari will have the legs on the Mercedes in the race.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/03/bahrain-pre-race-2023.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,896

    "Do you agree that TSE's footwear is outrageously garish and should never be seen in public?"

    Choose one of the options below:
    Completely / somewhat agree
    Completely / somewhat agree
    Completely / somewhat agree

    None of the above/aarrgghh ✅
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514
    Best header of recent times.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,877
    As an aside, the official F1 website having an 'unlocked' name for locked articles that can only be read in full if you register (for free, admittedly) is delinquent.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514
    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,259
    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514
    Inside the capital’s terrifying e-bike crime epidemic
    Street robberies went up 19 per cent in the year to February — with perpetrators on super fast bikes escaping with frightening ease.
    ...
    Although most violent crime rates, including murders, have fallen in the capital, Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley says the rise in muggings is unacceptable. Robbery increased by 19 per cent in the year to February and a quarter of the offences involved a knife. Smartphones are the property most often stolen, followed by cash, purses and jewellery. A total of 9,261 phones have been snatched in the past 12 months, a 23 per cent increase.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/london-e-bike-crime-epidemic-b1064229.html
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,526

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514
    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    There is also the lack of government investment (cf the United States which has announced billions of dollars in subsidies) or incentives for private investment.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695
    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695
    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    Trump is indeed favourite for the GOP nomination: 6/5 (odds-on in a place) while DeSantis can be backed at 15/8.

    Paradoxically, DeSantis and Trump are about the same price for the presidency itself. Burlington Bertie: 100/30.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,259
    edited March 2023

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Sunak in his campaign against Truss proposed more generous investment allowances against corporation tax rises. There might be a face-saving device there. At root, though, the government will need to counter American subsidies and protectionism, and soon EU subsidies and protectionism.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,757

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,770

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Why does IO so inflame your pisshole? It's only Matt Hancock she fucked over not a normal human being.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
    Being the Tories, my guess is they will try to do all three at once and end up failing to do any of them.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,259
    Dura_Ace said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Why does IO so inflame your pisshole? It's only Matt Hancock she fucked over not a normal human being.
    Pfffft
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,073

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    Actually, I disagree with that. In the expenses scandal, a few MPs and Lords were cheating the system financially (and a few went to jail). Most of the stories were actually b/s, with people falling victim what was a fairly arcane system.

    It's a shame the Telegraph didn't publish all of the expenses claims for its staff...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,515
    edited March 2023
    Give it time.



    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1632112939057422337

    I did hear the Taliban turned down an invite to CPAC as they thought it was bit too extreme for them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    Actually, I disagree with that. In the expenses scandal, a few MPs and Lords were cheating the system financially (and a few went to jail). Most of the stories were actually b/s, with people falling victim what was a fairly arcane system.

    It's a shame the Telegraph didn't publish all of the expenses claims for its staff...
    I know Matt's got a second house in France on expenses.
  • If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp
  • ydoethur said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
    Are you sure? 🤨

    The expenses data was confidential information. I suspect everyone working with the expenses data had no legal route to send it to the Telegraph and had the equivalent of an NDA with it.

    Similarly with the Grauniad when it reported on Wikileaks. That was clearly breaching disclosure regulations and the law.

    Or the Grauniad when it reported on the Panama Papers leak.

    Or pretty much any other data leak, they all come from confidential information that has been illegally obtained. There is no legal route to acquire any of this information, but if there's a public interest defence then the media are allowed to break the law on this as part of free speech and investigative journalism.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,757

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
  • If there is a hell Putin is definitely going to be there.

    The Ukrainian children stolen by Putin and sent to camps

    Parents were told youngsters were going on school trips — most never returned


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-children-stolen-by-putin-and-sent-to-camps-07mm2d5cz
  • Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    He should.

    I have little faith that he actually will.

    He seems to have as much interest in a low tax economy as Gordon Brown. So we might as well have Labour running the country, what difference does it make?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,259

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    You are a conspiracy theorist and I claim my £ 5
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247

    ydoethur said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
    Are you sure? 🤨

    The expenses data was confidential information. I suspect everyone working with the expenses data had no legal route to send it to the Telegraph and had the equivalent of an NDA with it.

    Similarly with the Grauniad when it reported on Wikileaks. That was clearly breaching disclosure regulations and the law.

    Or the Grauniad when it reported on the Panama Papers leak.

    Or pretty much any other data leak, they all come from confidential information that has been illegally obtained. There is no legal route to acquire any of this information, but if there's a public interest defence then the media are allowed to break the law on this as part of free speech and investigative journalism.
    Do you know who leaked those?

    Because that's the difference. A general restriction (which may also apply here, of course, in which case Hancock himself may be in deep shit) it's harder to work out who did the selling.

    Whereas with an NDA you know who did...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247

    If there is a hell Putin is definitely going to be there.

    The Ukrainian children stolen by Putin and sent to camps

    Parents were told youngsters were going on school trips — most never returned


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-children-stolen-by-putin-and-sent-to-camps-07mm2d5cz

    I prefer to think he'll suffer the fate the Button Moulder offered Peer Gynt. His soul will be melted down like wax as completely worthless.

    And I also hope there will be no Solveig to save him.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,526
    edited March 2023

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    People leak stuff all the time, and every leak involves a betrayal of trust. The leaker takes the view that the public interest (or getting back at a colleague, or making some cash or whatever) makes it worth it. I think discrediting the ghastly Hancock and his needless assaults on our freedom and our economy are completely justified.

    This was a man who thought ten years in prison was a suitable punishment for filling in a form wrong, after all.

    (And of course the even more ghastly Starmer supinely backed him and urged him to go further).
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    Even after dealing with the hereditary peers, the fundamental problem remains the mish-mash of the honours system and a parliamentary chamber.
  • SNP parliamentarians have warned that Humza Yousaf is doomed to fail as Scottish first minister even though he is the frontrunner in the race for the party leadership.

    Senior figures including some of his own supporters have privately said that the Scottish health secretary is “lightweight”, “over-promoted” and “not going to be able to deliver” if elected leader.

    One ally said Yousaf risked being ousted shortly after next year’s general election should the party not live up to its performance under Nicola Sturgeon.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/senior-snp-figures-write-off-humza-yousaf-as-new-leader-b3k8b0wtt
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
    Are you sure? 🤨

    The expenses data was confidential information. I suspect everyone working with the expenses data had no legal route to send it to the Telegraph and had the equivalent of an NDA with it.

    Similarly with the Grauniad when it reported on Wikileaks. That was clearly breaching disclosure regulations and the law.

    Or the Grauniad when it reported on the Panama Papers leak.

    Or pretty much any other data leak, they all come from confidential information that has been illegally obtained. There is no legal route to acquire any of this information, but if there's a public interest defence then the media are allowed to break the law on this as part of free speech and investigative journalism.
    Do you know who leaked those?

    Because that's the difference. A general restriction (which may also apply here, of course, in which case Hancock himself may be in deep shit) it's harder to work out who did the selling.

    Whereas with an NDA you know who did...
    Well yes we know who leaked Wikileaks data and they ended up in legal jeopardy for it, but the papers (Grauniad etc) did not. Although the American judicial system probably finds screwing over the American military and intelligence services more serious than the British judicial system finds screwing over Matt Hancock.

    Oakeshott could end up in serious legal trouble over this, the Telegraph not so much.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247
    edited March 2023

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
    Are you sure? 🤨

    The expenses data was confidential information. I suspect everyone working with the expenses data had no legal route to send it to the Telegraph and had the equivalent of an NDA with it.

    Similarly with the Grauniad when it reported on Wikileaks. That was clearly breaching disclosure regulations and the law.

    Or the Grauniad when it reported on the Panama Papers leak.

    Or pretty much any other data leak, they all come from confidential information that has been illegally obtained. There is no legal route to acquire any of this information, but if there's a public interest defence then the media are allowed to break the law on this as part of free speech and investigative journalism.
    Do you know who leaked those?

    Because that's the difference. A general restriction (which may also apply here, of course, in which case Hancock himself may be in deep shit) it's harder to work out who did the selling.

    Whereas with an NDA you know who did...
    Well yes we know who leaked Wikileaks data and they ended up in legal jeopardy for it, but the papers (Grauniad etc) did not. Although the American judicial system probably finds screwing over the American military and intelligence services more serious than the British judicial system finds screwing over Matt Hancock.

    Oakeshott could end up in serious legal trouble over this, the Telegraph not so much.
    I wasn't referring to the Telegraph. I was talking about Oakeshott.

    So I think we're actually on the same page here.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,553

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Sunak in his campaign against Truss proposed more generous investment allowances against corporation tax rises. There might be a face-saving device there. At root, though, the government will need to counter American subsidies and protectionism, and soon EU subsidies and protectionism.
    Indeed, high investment allowances including super allowances of over 100% mean that corporations can invest without tax, and indeed be paid to do so.

    Investing in the UK is taxed very lightly, it is just profit that is to be taxed, and that at rates similar to other countries.

    This is how global companies pay little tax anywhere, by playing off one country against another for special deals, leaving ordinary folk like us to pay all the tax.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,526

    If there is a hell Putin is definitely going to be there.

    The Ukrainian children stolen by Putin and sent to camps

    Parents were told youngsters were going on school trips — most never returned


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-children-stolen-by-putin-and-sent-to-camps-07mm2d5cz

    For some people, an eternity in hell just isn't bad enough.
  • Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,247
    Foxy said:

    If there is a hell Putin is definitely going to be there.

    The Ukrainian children stolen by Putin and sent to camps

    Parents were told youngsters were going on school trips — most never returned


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-children-stolen-by-putin-and-sent-to-camps-07mm2d5cz

    The war on Ukraine is a genocidal colonial one, to exterminate a people and culture.

    It astonishes me that so many fall for the Russian propaganda in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that Ukraine are the Nazis, and Russia fighting to protect its people.
    So many are hooked on Russian gas.

    And not just in those places either.

    Ukraine war: The Moldovan enclave surrounded by pro-Russian forces
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64824517
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,318
    Fishing said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    People leak stuff all the time, and every leak involves a betrayal of trust. The leaker takes the view that the public interest (or getting back at a colleague, or making some cash or whatever) makes it worth it. I think discrediting the ghastly Hancock and his needless assaults on our freedom and our economy are completely justified.

    This was a man who thought ten years in prison was a suitable punishment for filling in a form wrong, after all.

    (And of course the even more ghastly Starmer supinely backed him and urged him to go further).
    Had the Covid Inquiry started on a reasonable timeframe, then it's quite possible that these messages would now be part of the public record due to that inquiry.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,553

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
    What is the average time in cabinet for a modern cabinet minister? Median time might be 3-4 years at a guess. Most important public enquiries report 5-10 years after the events.......
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,632

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    It’s pretty shocking.

    It’s always fun to embarrass Hancock but she was given this information for a specific purpose and under an NDA.

    She has clearly demonstrated that she simply cannot be trusted
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,553

    Foxy said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
    What is the average time in cabinet for a modern cabinet minister? Median time might be 3-4 years at a guess. Most important public enquiries report 5-10 years after the events.......
    Sweden published its own enquiry results a year ago, with a mixed picture of lessons learned.

    https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2022/02/sou-202210/
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    It’s pretty shocking.

    It’s always fun to embarrass Hancock but she was given this information for a specific purpose and under an NDA.

    She has clearly demonstrated that she simply cannot be trusted
    To any politicians who may be reading this, there are other people who cannot be trusted too. Also known as journalists, oh and also politicians, especially your colleagues. Hope this helps.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,737
    Foxy said:

    If there is a hell Putin is definitely going to be there.

    The Ukrainian children stolen by Putin and sent to camps

    Parents were told youngsters were going on school trips — most never returned


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-ukrainian-children-stolen-by-putin-and-sent-to-camps-07mm2d5cz

    The war on Ukraine is a genocidal colonial one, to exterminate a people and culture.

    It astonishes me that so many fall for the Russian propaganda in Africa, Asia, and Latin America that Ukraine are the Nazis, and Russia fighting to protect its people.
    There are places in Africa, Asia, and Latin America where genocide is considered legitimate.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,682

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    Leak to a newspaper is inherently different from leak by a Cabinet minister for his own glory and profit.
  • Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    Trump is indeed favourite for the GOP nomination: 6/5 (odds-on in a place) while DeSantis can be backed at 15/8.

    Paradoxically, DeSantis and Trump are about the same price for the presidency itself. Burlington Bertie: 100/30.
    Been making the point for a while now. The best value bet wise is a Trump / RDS ticket (don't give me the home state thing - a way will be found round it)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,682

    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.

    Or to rein it in. That EOTHO conversation - where Hancock was frightened at the covid rise it was generating - was a shot across Mr Sunak's bows.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,757

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    Yup.

    And I'd be confident that, given access to all of the WhatsApp messages, you could make that story stand up as well.

    But, that leaves a couple of questions.

    One is what the ethics of leaking this stuff look like once you strip away the factional interest. I guess you could argue that a journalist has a duty to get what they know published, but what if that means losing the trust they need to get more information in the future?

    The other is how far it's OK to select some straws from the haystack and leave others behind. Where does news end and opinion begin?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,532
    In the great scheme of things, how important actually are the Oakeshott revelations? Everyone of us who has sat in management meetings will know that there are differences of interpretation and differences of opinion among the members.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
    I think the trouble is that it's not attracting much investment either.

    To win the next election the economy needs to grow and the cost of living crisis needs to abate.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695

    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Most of those leaked WhatsApp messages have been a bit of non event, to be honest.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,682

    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Most of those leaked WhatsApp messages have been a bit of non event, to be honest.
    (a) that's normal by the nature of things
    (b) ... and in a trash-the-wrong-sort-of-Tory campaign like this, some tasty bits will be being saved for later.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
    What is the average time in cabinet for a modern cabinet minister? Median time might be 3-4 years at a guess. Most important public enquiries report 5-10 years after the events.......
    Sweden published its own enquiry results a year ago, with a mixed picture of lessons learned.

    https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2022/02/sou-202210/
    What should the enquiry actually be for?

    At first glance it is obvious that is should be mainly for lessons learned and then to an extent holding people accountable for anything negligent (but not general mistakes).

    In reality, each crisis is very different and there is a strong chance either the lessons learnt are forgotten or are the wrong lessons for the next crisis. And the people accountable will have moved on.

    A much quicker, more streamlined report is clearly better for the public, but worse for the people in charge, so won't happen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,682
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/05/matt-hancock-leaks-lead-to-cover-up-fears-over-eat-out-to-help-out-scheme

    'Jonathan Portes, a professor in economics and public policy at King’s College London and a former senior civil servant at the Treasury, said: “It looks on the face of it that [the Treasury] was deliberately trying to conceal what the evidence was about eat out to help out.

    “We need to know what exactly the Department of Health told the Treasury, what was said internally about the data and what the advice was to ministers.”

    He said the evidence to date suggested there may have been a “cover-up” and the Treasury needed to publish all the relevant documents. He said it was “disgraceful” and “unprofessional” to dismiss the Warwick University paper [of October 2020], which was on a matter of significant public interest, and there should now be an inquiry.'

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244

    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Most of those leaked WhatsApp messages have been a bit of non event, to be honest.
    It will be a trickle, trickle of revelations every few weeks with big ones held back for when Sunak is in trouble over something or the public are paying attention to politics, like budget week or the local elections.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244
    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    She says no NDA, although hinted there were other confidentiality clauses she broke.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,487

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    That depends how relevant you think CPAC has become. The jury is very much out in that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,682
    edited March 2023
    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    Does the legality of Mr Hancock's original leak to Ms Oakeshott have any effect? There must have been a number of people not directly under Cabinet Office or HMG control whose telecomms were made public in this way, which is AFAIK illegal. Also under general civil service confidentiality rules.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,770

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    Trump is indeed favourite for the GOP nomination: 6/5 (odds-on in a place) while DeSantis can be backed at 15/8.

    Paradoxically, DeSantis and Trump are about the same price for the presidency itself. Burlington Bertie: 100/30.
    Been making the point for a while now. The best value bet wise is a Trump / RDS ticket (don't give me the home state thing - a way will be found round it)
    The only way round it is for one of them to register to vote in a different state as Cheney did in Wyoming so he could be W's Veep.

    That seems like a stretch for both of them for different reasons. RDS is governor and it looks like a low energy loser move for DJT.

    DJT also 100% believes he can beat RDS in a primary as doesn't need him as Veep.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    She says no NDA, although hinted there were other confidentiality clauses she broke.
    A settlement agreement in an employment context is an agreement with confidentiality clauses in it rather than being an NDA per se. Similarly I am guessing the contract she had with Hancock to write his book was a commercial agreement with confidentiality clauses in it, so same diff really.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,487

    Give it time.



    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1632112939057422337

    I did hear the Taliban turned down an invite to CPAC as they thought it was bit too extreme for them.

    Working up to it.
    ...“This is the final battle,” he continued. “They know it, I know it, You know it, everybody knows it. This is it. Either they win, or we win and if they win, we no longer have a country.”
    The former president went on to position himself as a “warrior” in a battle for “retribution” in Washington.
    “In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice.’ Today I add: I am your warrior, I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” ..
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    Does the legality of Mr Hancock's original leak to Ms Oakeshott have any effect? There must have been a number of people not directly under Cabinet Office or HMG control whose telecomms were made public in this way, which is AFAIK illegal. Also under general civil service confidentiality rules.
    Maybe. If the underlying premise of the contract was illegal conduct then it wouldn’t be enforceable. But I don’t know enough.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,757

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
    I think the trouble is that it's not attracting much investment either.

    To win the next election the economy needs to grow and the cost of living crisis needs to abate.
    And it's getting awfully late to do things with the economy. The next election is 14-20 months away, and "feel less bad" is going to have to do the job of feel good.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,514

    In the great scheme of things, how important actually are the Oakeshott revelations? Everyone of us who has sat in management meetings will know that there are differences of interpretation and differences of opinion among the members.

    One question that should not be missed is why are ministers using Whatsapp in the first place? Obviously, the government cannot put the instant messaging genie back in the bottle but there should be a properly archived and secure channel.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    Trump is indeed favourite for the GOP nomination: 6/5 (odds-on in a place) while DeSantis can be backed at 15/8.

    Paradoxically, DeSantis and Trump are about the same price for the presidency itself. Burlington Bertie: 100/30.
    Been making the point for a while now. The best value bet wise is a Trump / RDS ticket (don't give me the home state thing - a way will be found round it)
    The only way round it is for one of them to register to vote in a different state as Cheney did in Wyoming so he could be W's Veep.

    That seems like a stretch for both of them for different reasons. RDS is governor and it looks like a low energy loser move for DJT.

    DJT also 100% believes he can beat RDS in a primary as doesn't need him as Veep.
    As you say, it's been done before so it's not a stretch for DJT to do it.

    So the question becomes DJT. He knows he can beat RDS (and he would - check out how he reacted to the East Palestine train crash) but he may think RDS can do enough damage to hit him badly for Nov 24. Plus, RDS can't really wait 2024 out so has to enter even though he knows he can't win. The way out for both is to a deal.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,553
    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    Does the legality of Mr Hancock's original leak to Ms Oakeshott have any effect? There must have been a number of people not directly under Cabinet Office or HMG control whose telecomms were made public in this way, which is AFAIK illegal. Also under general civil service confidentiality rules.
    Indeed, under GPDR leaking conversations to third parties without their consent is an offence surely, whatever the NDA.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,481

    In the great scheme of things, how important actually are the Oakeshott revelations? Everyone of us who has sat in management meetings will know that there are differences of interpretation and differences of opinion among the members.

    I'm finding them more buttock clenching than jaw dropping.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,487

    ydoethur said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Nah. Telegraph just justifying it.
    I am not surprised Hancock is livid. It will make politicians more careful if nothing else.
    There are not words I can use to describe what I think of Oakshott as I don't want to add to the Lent swear word charity donation box which is already at £6 however justified the use of the word might be
    Both could be right. Oakshott has betrayed Hancock, and in doing so probably undermined trust in all journalists, but also there was a distinct lack of investigative journalism. The Spectator was most active on a budget of £3.50. From the Telegraph's point of view, they've paid Oakshott for Hancock's Whatsapp dump. Is this materially different from the Telegraph paying for MPs' expenses data?

    Mps were cheating the system financially.Oakeshott is betraying someone she was working for. I hope he can sue her for £££££££. I am not a supporter of Hancock but she needs as much opprobrium chucked over her as is possible.
    You could say the same about whoever sold the expenses data. Or you could call both whistleblowing. Or cashing in.
    Problem might be if this was covered by a non-disclosure agreement, which the expenses data wasn't.
    Are you sure? 🤨

    The expenses data was confidential information. I suspect everyone working with the expenses data had no legal route to send it to the Telegraph and had the equivalent of an NDA with it.

    Similarly with the Grauniad when it reported on Wikileaks. That was clearly breaching disclosure regulations and the law.

    Or the Grauniad when it reported on the Panama Papers leak.

    Or pretty much any other data leak, they all come from confidential information that has been illegally obtained. There is no legal route to acquire any of this information, but if there's a public interest defence then the media are allowed to break the law on this as part of free speech and investigative journalism.
    The law gives a bit of extra weight to NDAs, but not much.

    https://davidallengreen.com/2023/03/ndas-and-the-public-interest-a-beginners-guide-for-matt-hancock-and-others/
    ...It is arguable that a duty of confidentiality that has been expressly assumed under contract carries more weight, when balanced against the restriction of the right of freedom of expression, than a duty of confidentiality that is not buttressed by express agreement; but the extent to which a contract adds to the weight of duty of confidence arising out of a confidential relationship will depend upon the facts of the individual case (ibid at [69] citing Campbell v Frisbee [2003] ICR 141).

    “(4) Thus, in essence, the Court must consider whether, having regard to the nature of the information and all the relevant circumstances, it is legitimate for the owner of the information to seek to keep it confidential or whether it is in the public interest that the information should be made public.”..

  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,695
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Sunak in his campaign against Truss proposed more generous investment allowances against corporation tax rises. There might be a face-saving device there. At root, though, the government will need to counter American subsidies and protectionism, and soon EU subsidies and protectionism.
    Indeed, high investment allowances including super allowances of over 100% mean that corporations can invest without tax, and indeed be paid to do so.

    Investing in the UK is taxed very lightly, it is just profit that is to be taxed, and that at rates similar to other countries.

    This is how global companies pay little tax anywhere, by playing off one country against another for special deals, leaving ordinary folk like us to pay all the tax.
    We actually have some of the least generous tax treatment of capital spending in the West (once the temporary superdeduction goes). It’s why so many UK companies have effective tax rates well above the headline rate.

    I don’t think the headline rate makes a huge amount of difference to businesses already here. It has a signalling effect to US groups, but they’re pulling investment back to the US anyway because of the huge incentives there.

    These were the somewhat more nuanced points I was making to the journalist, which seem to have been turned as if by magic into a demand for tax cuts.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,034

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    Its bloody easy to reform it if he doesn't want to go that far. Its been gone over 100 times before.

    Attendance requirements
    Restrictions on MP or donor elevations.
    Age limitation
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,329

    Dura_Ace said:

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    Trump is indeed favourite for the GOP nomination: 6/5 (odds-on in a place) while DeSantis can be backed at 15/8.

    Paradoxically, DeSantis and Trump are about the same price for the presidency itself. Burlington Bertie: 100/30.
    Been making the point for a while now. The best value bet wise is a Trump / RDS ticket (don't give me the home state thing - a way will be found round it)
    The only way round it is for one of them to register to vote in a different state as Cheney did in Wyoming so he could be W's Veep.

    That seems like a stretch for both of them for different reasons. RDS is governor and it looks like a low energy loser move for DJT.

    DJT also 100% believes he can beat RDS in a primary as doesn't need him as Veep.
    As you say, it's been done before so it's not a stretch for DJT to do it.

    So the question becomes DJT. He knows he can beat RDS (and he would - check out how he reacted to the East Palestine train crash) but he may think RDS can do enough damage to hit him badly for Nov 24. Plus, RDS can't really wait 2024 out so has to enter even though he knows he can't win. The way out for both is to a deal.
    As for 2024 this new blind item may be relevant, certainly in terms of one likely prominent candidate


    https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2023/03/blind-item-8_3.html?m=1
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695
    Carnyx said:

    From a political betting point of view, I think it pretty strong odds on that the Telegraph has enough material to bring down the government at a point of its choosing.

    I'm not sure that's true.

    Most of those leaked WhatsApp messages have been a bit of non event, to be honest.
    (a) that's normal by the nature of things
    (b) ... and in a trash-the-wrong-sort-of-Tory campaign like this, some tasty bits will be being saved for later.
    That remains to be seen.

    It's not like the expenses scandal, where every day was gold.

    Most of the leaked messages are remarkably banal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,034
    Nigelb said:

    Give it time.



    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1632112939057422337

    I did hear the Taliban turned down an invite to CPAC as they thought it was bit too extreme for them.

    Working up to it.
    ...“This is the final battle,” he continued. “They know it, I know it, You know it, everybody knows it. This is it. Either they win, or we win and if they win, we no longer have a country.”
    The former president went on to position himself as a “warrior” in a battle for “retribution” in Washington.
    “In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice.’ Today I add: I am your warrior, I am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” ..
    Its incredible that they fall for it. Even by the standards of most politicians he's all Me Me Me and they know it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
    I think the trouble is that it's not attracting much investment either.

    To win the next election the economy needs to grow and the cost of living crisis needs to abate.
    And it's getting awfully late to do things with the economy. The next election is 14-20 months away, and "feel less bad" is going to have to do the job of feel good.

    That's all that can be hoped for.

    You've got to play the hand you've been dealt.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,329

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    No Sunak won't abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house as Sir Keir is proposing to do. He might reform it however

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695
    Nigelb said:

    Trump seems to be making waves at CPAC and leaving other contenders trailing behind, even DeSantis.

    I've laid him some more for Next President, but he's got to currently be favourite for the nomination.

    That depends how relevant you think CPAC has become. The jury is very much out in that.
    My book likes this post but I'm not sure that's what's happening.

    The polling looks good for Trump for the nom.
  • HYUFD said:

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    No Sunak won't abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house as Sir Keir is proposing to do. He might reform it however

    The House of Lords is an anachronism and needs comprehensive reform
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,329

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    Being in their own words 'somewhere near the middle of the pack' on tax at the moment rather than low tax is not so bad as the financial markets collapsing sterling due to the huge tax cuts for corporations under Truss and Kwarteng which were not matched with spending cuts and expanded the deficit
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    DougSeal said:

    I’d really like Hancock to sue Oakshott just from a professional standpoint. NDA’s are routinely put in employment settlement agreements, although these days with a specific exemption for public interest disclosures and the reporting of crime, but it’s rare to see litigation on their breach. Would be fascinating to see what happens at trial. I have no predictions.

    Does the legality of Mr Hancock's original leak to Ms Oakeshott have any effect? There must have been a number of people not directly under Cabinet Office or HMG control whose telecomms were made public in this way, which is AFAIK illegal. Also under general civil service confidentiality rules.
    Indeed, under GPDR leaking conversations to third parties without their consent is an offence surely, whatever the NDA.
    It’s an incredibly complex area. Data protection legislation only protects data that makes you personally identifiable (email addresses, names, details of personal characteristics etc.) and the content of a WhatsApp conversation is not automatically personal data. If it is possible to identify an individual directly from the information you are processing, then that information may be personal data. But there’s not really any such information, save for the names of the individuals sending the messages, in these Whatsapp messages. So I’d question whether they are personal data in the first place.

    If I’m wrong, and they are, then UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 set out exemptions from some of the rights and obligations in some circumstances. One of those is journalism and the public interest. Now, this is not the place for an in depth discussion about whether this or any other exemption was available to Oakeshott and the DT, but their lawyers would have been all over it I’m sure.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 54,695

    HYUFD said:

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    No Sunak won't abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house as Sir Keir is proposing to do. He might reform it however

    The House of Lords is an anachronism and needs comprehensive reform
    Quite frankly, and somewhat perversely, reform sometimes makes it worse.

    The behaviour of the hereditaries is much better than that of the life peers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,487
    .
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
    What is the average time in cabinet for a modern cabinet minister? Median time might be 3-4 years at a guess. Most important public enquiries report 5-10 years after the events.......
    Sweden published its own enquiry results a year ago, with a mixed picture of lessons learned.

    https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2022/02/sou-202210/
    The leak may actually speed the enquiry.
    It's possible both to hold Oakshott in a degree of contempt, and approve the results.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623
    HYUFD said:

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    No Sunak won't abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house as Sir Keir is proposing to do. He might reform it however

    That seems like a potentially fine distinction.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,553
    edited March 2023

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Woukd be interesting to have a poll on Isabelle Oakshott and what she did.
    Frankly, I hopes she never gets a gig again. Journalists have always been held in low esteem. Oakshott just drags the profession closer to.the gutter.

    The journalists condemning Isabel Oakeshott for doing her job didn’t do theirs properly
    Why are commentators so intent on killing the messenger, instead of focusing on the substance of the message?


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/journalists-condemning-isabel-oakeshott-job-didnt-do-properly/ (£££)
    Two reasons I can think of.

    Key one is that The Telegraph is pushing a line (lockdowns uniquely bad, should never have happened) that the public mostly don't agree with. Making Sunak out as an anti-lockdown hero works for some, but not many.

    Second, we all know that we're only getting a small, selected slice of the messages. What's the whole story?
    Indeed had the messages been leaked to the Grauniad and they were pushing a line (lockdowns unnecessarily delayed, should have happened sooner) then many of those extremely critical of Oakeshott would now be lauding the leak instead.
    What we need to see is this sort of evidence being discussed at the covid enquiry, not least so we can plan better for the next crisis, which may not be so far away.

    Instead because both sides fear for the results that it has been kicked into the long grass, so by the time it actually reports everyone will have forgotten the point.
    What is the average time in cabinet for a modern cabinet minister? Median time might be 3-4 years at a guess. Most important public enquiries report 5-10 years after the events.......
    Sweden published its own enquiry results a year ago, with a mixed picture of lessons learned.

    https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2022/02/sou-202210/
    What should the enquiry actually be for?

    At first glance it is obvious that is should be mainly for lessons learned and then to an extent holding people accountable for anything negligent (but not general mistakes).

    In reality, each crisis is very different and there is a strong chance either the lessons learnt are forgotten or are the wrong lessons for the next crisis. And the people accountable will have moved on.

    A much quicker, more streamlined report is clearly better for the public, but worse for the people in charge, so won't happen.
    The enquiry really requires 3 parts:

    1) A scientific analysis of what worked and what didn't in terms of disease control and mitigation. This needs to include resilience of the NHS, pandemic preparation, impact on non-covid services, impact of lockdowns on mental health etc.

    2) a social and economic analysis of the impacts of pandemic and its control measures (these are intertwined) on how we lived, the changes to work, education and socialisation etc

    3) an analysis of who took decisions, when, and on what advice.

    The first and second are the important ones for future decision-making so needed soon, the 3rd for political mudslinging, so more likely to be contentious, but not really to matter much in future decades, and can take its time.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    HYUFD said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    Being in their own words 'somewhere near the middle of the pack' on tax at the moment rather than low tax is not so bad as the financial markets collapsing sterling due to the huge tax cuts for corporations under Truss and Kwarteng which were not matched with spending cuts and expanded the deficit
    Tory governments, eh? Watchagonna do?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,757

    Fishing said:

    Dozens of US companies shun Britain over high taxes and no growth plan
    KPMG warns clients will not invest while 'UK not firing on all cylinders' under Jeremy Hunt

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/04/dozens-us-companies-shun-britain-high-taxes-no-growth-plan/ (£££)

    I can't believe that raising corporate taxes would drive corporations away.

    Some mistake surely?
    It will be interesting to see how Hunt addresses this in the budget.

    He will have to do so.
    Depends what the government trying to achieve.

    If it's to favour investment over taking profits now, it's probably a higher rate of corp tax with more investment deductions.

    If it's to encourage companies to funnel money through the UK, it's a lower rate, but that feels like the sort of dead end that's got us here. These days, it's too easy to pass money between countries without creating jobs.

    If it's to win the next election, the best plan is probably to take as much as possible from companies to fund goodies for voters.
    I think the trouble is that it's not attracting much investment either.

    To win the next election the economy needs to grow and the cost of living crisis needs to abate.
    And it's getting awfully late to do things with the economy. The next election is 14-20 months away, and "feel less bad" is going to have to do the job of feel good.

    That's all that can be hoped for.

    You've got to play the hand you've been dealt.
    Yup. For a while now, British prosperity has felt a bit like pixie gold. Sunak's misfortune (mangling metaphors a bit) is to be left holding Cinderella's carriage as the clock strikes midnight and it turns back into a pumpkin.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,487

    In the great scheme of things, how important actually are the Oakeshott revelations? Everyone of us who has sat in management meetings will know that there are differences of interpretation and differences of opinion among the members.

    Good morning

    IMHO Oakeshott and Hancock have only managed to confirm the view that they are both ideally suited to each other with a common theme of betrayal

    Oakeshott, Tice and the Telegraph are anti lockdown which is very much against the majority of public opinion, and frankly I do not think their revelations help their cause as much as they think they do

    They don't really.
    But however dodgy her motives, she's probably on balance ended up doing a public service.
  • Right then. More banging going on in our shop-to-be former bank. Ring Cam not picking up any movement, but definitely door banging going on.

    Context - house & bank/shop are one U-shaped building. House is southern wing and upstairs across the middle & northern wing, bank is downstairs in the middle and northern wing. Wifey's office upstairs is directly above the former banking hall entrance door. Which keeps being slammed despite nobody being in that part of the building.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,329

    HYUFD said:

    If he abolishes it then he has my vote.

    Sunak’s secret meetings about the Lords — and why he thinks it needs reform

    With more than 800 members, the upper chamber is second only to the Chinese National People’s Congress in size, and not everyone contributes equally

    Male peers, as well as those based in London and the southeast, are overrepresented in the chamber when compared with the general population.

    Yet they turn up and speak less than their female counterparts or those from the north and Midlands, our analysis shows....

    ..More than 45 per cent of current peers reside in London and the southeast, compared with only 27 per cent of the population. The northwest and West Midlands are the least represented, with only 8 per cent of peers living in these regions compared with 20 per cent of the population....

    ...Peers from ethnic minorities claim less in expenses than their white counterparts, and contribute more to debates. Only 7 per cent of current peers are non-white, versus 18 per cent of the country’s population.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunaks-secret-meetings-about-the-lords-and-why-he-thinks-it-needs-reform-6gnwqr3jp

    No Sunak won't abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected upper house as Sir Keir is proposing to do. He might reform it however

    The House of Lords is an anachronism and needs comprehensive reform
    It is made up of people many of whom have been top of their field in areas like business, law, the civil service and academia and the media and culture, not just ex politicians. The fact it is unelected also means that it won't seek to block Commons legislation, just revise it.

    A fully elected upper house though would seek to use its mandate to block passage of legislation passed by the elected Commons
This discussion has been closed.