I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.
MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes
The constitutional reality is that this is already the case. If MPs from the governing party don't support a person to be PM, and if that is made clear, that person is highly unlikely to become PM. But MPs go along with it. The argument against is like the argument against a Brexit vote (the first one): the answer might be wrong so we have to stop anyone asking the question. At any rate, MPs chose both Sunak and Truss for the final two in 2022, and they are as useful in office as a cabbage and a lettuce respectively.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.
MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes
I agree. MPs. Not members. And then Parliament as a whole confirms that by accepting or rejecting through the normal process.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
No, we vote for parties. An MPs personal following has little to do with it.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
Unfortunately for this argument, the voters have the ultimate say, and more than 99% of the time they tell the people making this argument themselves to "f*** off". They vote for parties, presumably because there is no point voting for a Bolsover First MP who gets absolutely nothing done, even in a world with 649 other MPs of the same ilk.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
No, we vote for parties. An MPs personal following has little to do with it.
I would - I hope - always vote for a person over a party. Better someone I liked and trusted, even if I didn't agree with them on every matter, than just another nameless aparachik wearing an appropriately coloured rosette.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.
MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes
I agree. MPs. Not members. And then Parliament as a whole confirms that by accepting or rejecting through the normal process.
One of the main selling points of the Liberals/SDP/Lib Dems used to be that they were the only major party that allowed ordinary members to vote for the leader.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.
MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes
I agree. MPs. Not members. And then Parliament as a whole confirms that by accepting or rejecting through the normal process.
One of the main selling points of the Liberals/SDP/Lib Dems used to be that they were the only major party that allowed ordinary members to vote for the leader.
Usually because they only had about five MPs, so there wouldn't be much of a contest.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Members can select the Leader of the Opposition and voters can confirm if they want them to become PM at the next general election.
MPs from the governing party alone should be able to remove and elect a new PM in power yes
I agree. MPs. Not members. And then Parliament as a whole confirms that by accepting or rejecting through the normal process.
One of the main selling points of the Liberals/SDP/Lib Dems used to be that they were the only major party that allowed ordinary members to vote for the leader.
Usually because they only had about five MPs, so there wouldn't be much of a contest.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
No, we vote for parties. An MPs personal following has little to do with it.
No legally we vote for an MP. And it is the MPs - all of them - who then have an equal say in who becomes PM. That is the whole basis of our system. That is why we have the situation where the party can lose its majority and PMs can be forced out purely by a change in the voting behaviour of MPs. That is why MPs can cross the floor and not have to face reelection.
Members should have no part in this. It should be entirely down to the MPs themselves. ANything else and you are putting party before country.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
As an aside, I think the idea that who the MP is has little impact on the result is bunkum.
I know people who are big fans of party lists like to think otherwise, but there are a number of very obvious examples of people who (a) transcended party lines to get elected (Dick Taverne, Dr Richard Taylor or Peter Law), or (b) who got dramatically higher votes for their party than was the case after they stepped down (several LibDem MPs I could mention).
I could also point to Claire Wright, who managed more than 40% of the vote in East Devon in 2019, although that wasn't enough to grab the seat.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
"We, the undersigned luvvies, are obviously better people and know a lot more about politics than anyone else. As such we're going to make tits of ourselves with some naive virtue-signalling to impress other luvvies and get ourselves some publicity ..."
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Why indeed ?
You're talking about two different things, though. The deal for choosing the party's leader is the payment of a few quid a year.
Activists are activists for quite different reasons.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
"We, the undersigned luvvies, are obviously better people and know a lot more about politics than anyone else. As such we're going to make tits of ourselves with some naive virtue-signalling to impress other luvvies and get ourselves some publicity ..."
Lucky there’s no decision-makers in LaLa Land likely to be grossly offended by this bunch of virtue-signalling luvvies.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?
Hodges needs to stfu as he writes for a vile scum sucking paper which historically was a Nazi appeaser .
And the guardian is a Cayman island based tax efficient structure which was funded from slavery.
If he has a point he has a point. You don’t get to shut him down because you don’t like what he is saying
He might have a point but the DM is a hate filled cancer on this country .
The beauty of living in the west is that you get to say what you believe… and Hodges gets to say what he believes.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?
Hodges needs to stfu as he writes for a vile scum sucking paper which historically was a Nazi appeaser .
And the guardian is a Cayman island based tax efficient structure which was funded from slavery.
If he has a point he has a point. You don’t get to shut him down because you don’t like what he is saying
He might have a point but the DM is a hate filled cancer on this country .
The beauty of living in the west is that you get to say what you believe… and Hodges gets to say what he believes.
I'm just surprised to learn he writes for the Daily Mirror.
This piece by Raphael Behr is excellent. Let's all do our best to make sure that PB doesn't fall into the category of "polarised and monotonous, hysterical and portentous, all at the same time."
This piece by Raphael Behr is excellent. Let's all do our best to make sure that PB doesn't fall into the category of "polarised and monotonous, hysterical and portentous, all at the same time."
Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.
I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner
The Young Conservative membership also steadily and significantly dropped through the 80s and 90s. You can't pin that on online dating.
If Labour don't gain Tamworth, pile on a hung Parliament for the next election. If they do, they might just get an overall majority despite the formidable obstacles.
Ignore Mid Beds, which is essentially white noise. Tamworth is the key because it's got exactly the sort of electorate Labour need to be winning big to win power.
I've no idea what the result will be, even though I live nearby. What I would say is that you shouldn't run away with the idea Pincher had a personal vote - most people in the town disliked him because he was lazy, rude and incompetent as well as a creep. So any swing is a national swing, which also helps in extrapolating the result.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Bankman Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
Even the Corbyn rise, impressive though it was, is not close to the old Tory numbers (The SNP's was though, a s applying to Scotland specifically), and whilst equivalent to the former Labour numbers, was a pretty unique circumstance, since members did already have the vote and the numbers had not increased before, so it wasn't the ability to vote which brought them in, it was Corbyn himself.
I think Tinder and Eharmony and online dating did the biggest hit to Tory membership, YC balls in the 1950s through to the mid 1980s were one of the best ways for middle class young people to meet a partner
The Young Conservative membership also steadily and significantly dropped through the 80s and 90s. You can't pin that on online dating.
All that's left is withered old Conservative balls.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
The weather is terrible out there this morning, howling wind and very strong rain. We are still in the yellow warning sector but it is forecast to turn to red this afternoon. Much though I care about the Union I think I will skip voting on this today.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
From what I've read about SBF, he is a fraudster through sheer unknowing and uncaring incompetence. But still a fraudster.
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
The Met Office are forecasting up to 10 inches of rain in the wettest spots of Angus and Aberdeenshire over Thursday and Friday.
Ten inches of rain is a kilotonne of water per acre.
Last time I was in Angus was the day before the train slide caused by heavy rain. Useless fact. Can't remember whether it was 2021 or 2020.
August 2020. We visited Dunnottar Castle (via Stonehaven station) just 7 months earlier.
Point of pedantry: Stonehaven is in the Mearns (Kincardineshire), not Angus.
Further pedantry, it's actually in the council area of Aberdeenshire.
Is Kincardineshire not the same as Aberdeenshire just an old name? I've always found the location of Kincardineshire odd given that the town Kincardine is in Fife.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
Some of the testimony coming out in the court case is pretty damning,
His former partners are happily throwing him under the bus at the moment.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Has a single person who condemned Israel over the hospital bombing yesterday condemned Hamas or its proxies today? Anyone? Anywhere?
What's the latest with the hospital bombing? I take it from Hodges' tone that it's now a slam-dunk certainty that Hamas were responsible.
It's a fairly long analysis, but the line that sums it up for me is "The laws of physics are on the Israelis’ side" - i.e. all the evidence from the blast site point to it being a rocket, and fired from the south.
This is also a rather good thread of evidence leading up to the conclusion that "A missile launched by a Palestinian group exploded mid-air (Reason unknown) and one piece fell on the hospital causing an explosion." https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1714390254935851272
It feels quite conclusive to me.
I think it's 90% likely to be Hamas; so not certain yet, but by far the most likely scenario.
PIJ is a rival to Hamas, even thought right now I am sure they are working in cohort…
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
From what I've read about SBF, he is a fraudster through sheer unknowing and uncaring incompetence. But still a fraudster.
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
What you've described is SBF's defence. As far as I can tell it's total bullshit, and he committed fraud, repeatedly and knowingly. Anyhow we'll see what the jury thinks.
I think it is correct and reasonable, but we've seen the petulant reactions of party members when 'denied' the chance to vote on a leader, despite it being a recent innovation ("What's the point of being a member?" being the cry), and even though its attacked as undemocratic when party members vote anyway I don't think the party has the guts to openly call for the members to no longer be involved.
Including party members does not reflect the people who need to back and support the leader on a daily basis,and just leads to arguments about mandate, it is unrepresentative, it is not really any kind of mass involvement, and is not how the system really works.
Really? I'm surprised you've been convinced by such a facile argument - it bears zero scrutiny. The members get to choose between two candidates, decided by MPs. Every time they've alledgedly chosen 'wrong', they've done so for very good reason. Ken Clark was totally and uncompromisingly at odds with the majority of the party on Europe - MPs could have sent members the mild eurosceptic Michael Portillo; they chose to send IDS. Truss vs. Sunak - Truss was manoeuvred into second place by Sunak donating MPs to other campaigns, leaving other (potentially better) candidates benched. And can we really say that they chose wrong? They chose someone who believed in the UK and its future over a slimy technocrat who in the event has made an utter fucking horlicks of everything anyway. If anything, Tory MPs should be relieved of the responsibility of voting for the leader, or at least have to send the members three options so there's less chance of a stitch up.
The members should have no part in it. The Prime Minister is supposed to be the person who can command the support of the House of Commons. The choice should be left to MPs from the governing party alone and ultimately to Parliament through a vote of confidence.
And Truss made an utter fucking Horlicks of everything as well. Which is why we ended up with Sunak.
Fuck the membership. Leave it to MPs or have the courage to call a General Election.
Absurd. Why exactly should a political party give their time, money, shoe leather, and blood sweat and tears, so careerist MPs can rip up a conservative agenda and do what the heck they like? If any Tory MPs don't like it, fuck off and start a new party and see how they get on. You're really off the boil lately. Get well soon.
Because we elect MPs to govern, not parties. Fuck the parties. They should have no power that doesn't derive directly from the MPs. That is Parliamentary democracy and to be honest if you don't like it then you are the one who should be fucking off.
If only we had a voting system that maximised the leverage of the individual MP rather than that of the political parties.
As an aside, I think the idea that who the MP is has little impact on the result is bunkum.
I know people who are big fans of party lists like to think otherwise, but there are a number of very obvious examples of people who (a) transcended party lines to get elected (Dick Taverne, Dr Richard Taylor or Peter Law), or (b) who got dramatically higher votes for their party than was the case after they stepped down (several LibDem MPs I could mention).
I could also point to Claire Wright, who managed more than 40% of the vote in East Devon in 2019, although that wasn't enough to grab the seat.
There are 650 MPs. A handful of examples of personal votes over several decades doesn’t seem that persuasive. Maybe who the MP is has a lot of impact in tens of cases, but that still means it doesn’t in hundreds of cases.
With respect to the hospital, we have to start questioning the alleged number of casualties. Reports suggested <500 dead, with medics describing the ceiling collapsing into the operating theatre they were operating in etc etc.
Then look at the morning after pictures. The hospital is completely intact bar a few broken windows immediately adjacent to the car park.
Unless <500 were squeezed into the small spot where the missile fragment landed, I call bullshit. There are cars in the same car park which are still neatly parked and didn't burn.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
I loved the story about how they used a random number to work out what was in their insurance account.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
I haven't read that book but it's not getting a kind reception from people who have been following the case. Lewis seems to have planned his book without knowing about the fraud and got conned by SBF, then rather than throwing out everything he'd written he decided to mostly go with it as is.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
From what I've read about SBF, he is a fraudster through sheer unknowing and uncaring incompetence. But still a fraudster.
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
What you've described is SBF's defence. As far as I can tell it's total bullshit, and he committed fraud, repeatedly and knowingly. Anyhow we'll see what the jury thinks.
Yes, and I think there's some truth in it. But as I said above, he's obviously guilty of fraud (obvious to me, at least). But I'd also add another charge: incompetence. He couldn't even be a competent fraudster.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
I loved the story about how they used a random number to work out what was in their insurance account.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
I loved the story about how they used a random number to work out what was in their insurance account.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
They didn't use the random to *work it out*, they used it to deceive people into thinking their money was safe. It's not a cute thing to do by someone oblivious to finance, it's one of the many ways he deliberately stole people's money.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
Some of the testimony coming out in the court case is pretty damning,
His former partners are happily throwing him under the bus at the moment.
Well, they have all done plea deals which are conditional on giving such testimony.
The American criminal justice system is weird. Lewis commented that in this country we have lots of acquittals. In the US, for financial crimes, the conviction rate is over 99.5%, largely based on plea bargaining. Its a system where Fried going to trial is very much the exception. Faced with potentially horrendous penalties nearly everyone pleads. Its not a justice system to be proud of in my view.
As an aside, I think the idea that who the MP is has little impact on the result is bunkum.
I know people who are big fans of party lists like to think otherwise, but there are a number of very obvious examples of people who (a) transcended party lines to get elected (Dick Taverne, Dr Richard Taylor or Peter Law), or (b) who got dramatically higher votes for their party than was the case after they stepped down (several LibDem MPs I could mention).
I could also point to Claire Wright, who managed more than 40% of the vote in East Devon in 2019, although that wasn't enough to grab the seat.
There are 650 MPs. A handful of examples of personal votes over several decades doesn’t seem that persuasive. Maybe who the MP is has a lot of impact in tens of cases, but that still means it doesn’t in hundreds of cases.
Quite. Google says only 13 independent MPs have been elected since 1950.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
From what I've read about SBF, he is a fraudster through sheer unknowing and uncaring incompetence. But still a fraudster.
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
What you've described is SBF's defence. As far as I can tell it's total bullshit, and he committed fraud, repeatedly and knowingly. Anyhow we'll see what the jury thinks.
Yes, and I think there's some truth in it. But as I said above, he's obviously guilty of fraud (obvious to me, at least). But I'd also add another charge: incompetence. He couldn't even be a competent fraudster.
As an aside, I think the idea that who the MP is has little impact on the result is bunkum.
I know people who are big fans of party lists like to think otherwise, but there are a number of very obvious examples of people who (a) transcended party lines to get elected (Dick Taverne, Dr Richard Taylor or Peter Law), or (b) who got dramatically higher votes for their party than was the case after they stepped down (several LibDem MPs I could mention).
I could also point to Claire Wright, who managed more than 40% of the vote in East Devon in 2019, although that wasn't enough to grab the seat.
There are 650 MPs. A handful of examples of personal votes over several decades doesn’t seem that persuasive. Maybe who the MP is has a lot of impact in tens of cases, but that still means it doesn’t in hundreds of cases.
Voters want an independently minded, well known MP who makes a difference, which is what those examples show. The parties don’t, however, especially the big two. And the way our system is set up, the big parties generally have enough leverage to normally get their way.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
From what I've read about SBF, he is a fraudster through sheer unknowing and uncaring incompetence. But still a fraudster.
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
What you've described is SBF's defence. As far as I can tell it's total bullshit, and he committed fraud, repeatedly and knowingly. Anyhow we'll see what the jury thinks.
Surely he has learned the basics of business and accounting.
Don't put coke and hookers through your business. Get a generic receipt for a "wellness retreat" instead...
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
A touch of Plato syndrome about this. A once reasonable poster, who’s now just deranged.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
I loved the story about how they used a random number to work out what was in their insurance account.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
It was serialised on R4 last week, interesting but somewhat floridly written. Fried certainly didn't present as a crooked mastermind.
There was a throw away comment in the interview yesterday that $15bn of deposits which were supposed to be being held by the company were in fact all invested in its exchange by the company to boost liquidity and turnover. That, if true, is a pretty straightforward fraud, something quite a lot of solicitors get done for when they dip into the client account.
I loved the story about how they used a random number to work out what was in their insurance account.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
They didn't use the random to *work it out*, they used it to deceive people into thinking their money was safe. It's not a cute thing to do by someone oblivious to finance, it's one of the many ways he deliberately stole people's money.
Yes, that was wrong phrasing by me. But it can be both.
Note: I'm not defending SBF. I made it clear he's a fraudster and that he should go to jail for a long time.
Tamworth: LAB by 2600 votes Mid Beds: LAB by 500 votes on under 30% share.
TAMWORTH: I've tacked close to the local election indicators here, and I'm pretty confident Labour have enough in the tank.
The basis for the prediction is the 20 odd votes that Labour won the constituency by in the 2023 locals, plus the council by election that took place under the massive political shadow of the main by-election and showed a generic result of a further small percentage swing towards Labour. My result is Labour by around 8%.
The Con memo saying their vote share has halved could point to a larger Labour victory up to around 15%.
MID BEDS: The local election results from May are complicated by a large, Tory leaning, independent vote. Natively, LE results suggest Tory win, and you have to count a good part of the Ind vote swinging Lab and/or LD to get any other result.
But if you factor in such swing with Tories treading water on their LE vote shares, you do come up with something like the seat polling showing it neck and neck between Con and Lab.
I'm going that the various push and pull factors since then have balanced out and the constituency polling is close to the result.
Labour's win very possibly to be on an under 30% vote share, and Con to beat LD.
I'm well away from the local election results in predicting this, and last time I took a feeling in my water over LE results I undercooked the swing to Labour in Rutherglen, which LEs would have pointed to being comfortably over 10%.
You can make a case for any finishing order here and I'm not confident in my prediction.
How can the BBC still justify reporting the hospital as “Israel says this, but Hamas says that”? We now know what happened, and in any case those two “sides” aren’t morally equivalent or equally likely to tell the truth. The BBC understands this in Ukraine, for example. And with IS.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
SKS is a Genocide enabler just surprised Nick is OK with that.
As for your language labelling anyone who supported the centre left polices of Jezza as cranks, Trotskyites Jezbollah.and worse.
You should look in the pathetic namecalling mirror.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
Very sweet, but I don't see him being swayed by such a sum.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
The rest of us can only aspire to the moral purity of the Jezziah.
Tamworth: LAB by 2600 votes Mid Beds: LAB by 500 votes
TAMWORTH: I've tacked close to the local election indicators here, and I'm pretty confident Labour have enough in the tank.
The basis for the prediction is the 20 odd votes that Labour won the constituency by in the 2023 locals, plus the council by election that took place under the massive political shadow of the main by-election and showed a generic result of a further small percentage swing towards Labour. My result is Labour by around 8%.
The Con memo saying their vote has halved could point to a larger Labour victory.
MID BEDS: The local election results from May are complicated by a large, Tory leaning, independent vote. Natively, LE results suggest Tory win, and you have to count a lot of the Ind vote swinging Lab and/or LD to get any other result.
But if you factor in such swing with Tories treading water on their LE vote shares, you do come up with something like the seat polling slowing it neck and neck between Con and Lab.
I'm going that the various push and pull factors since then have balanced out and the constituency polling is close to the result.
Labour's win very possibly to be on an under 30% vote share, and Con to beat LD.
I'm well away from the local election results in predicting this, and last time I took a feeling in my water over LE results I undercooked the swing to Labour in Rutherglen, which LEs would have pointed to being comfortably over 10%.
You can make a case for any finishing order here and I'm not confident.
I think that’s about right. The weather may even yet play it’s role.
An open letter signed by well-known actors condemning Israeli military actions has been criticised for failing to mention brutal terror attacks carried out by Hamas.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
This is why I have a strict "don't ask" policy when it comes to artists and their personal views. Peake is a brilliant actor. She's a mentalist politically, but I don't care what her views are so I can keep watching her stuff.
Same here, but they are all so happy to volunteer their views anyway.
Apart from as a gesture of support for the Israeli people after their suffered a terrorist atrocity, of course.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
Very sweet, but I don't see him being swayed by such a sum.
Dunno. Have you seen the accounts that are emerging?
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
You think he'd stick to the deal ?
There’s another £50 in it for him the day after nominations close….
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
A touch of Plato syndrome about this. A once reasonable poster, who’s now just deranged.
Wow, bizarre claim. Nick is one of the most balanced and rational posters here, or anywhere. Threesome aside !!!!
I personally think that claim should be retracted as it is monstrously unfair.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
A touch of Plato syndrome about this. A once reasonable poster, who’s now just deranged.
The problem as usual is absolutism. Support for Israel must mean condemnation of Palestine and vice versa. Not true - we need to secure peace and security for both. My problem is that the hard left endlessly repeat "from the river to the sea" - a polite way to describe the same Jew genocide planned by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran.
Park the bullshit around this hospital non-bombing for a moment. The hard left are in support of Hamas and IJ firing rockets aimed at murdering civilians. This rocket murdered some of their own civilians but thats OK as Hamas wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible as well
And note how the world has treated the two alleged outrages. One is Hamas slaughtering in the most medieval ways thousands of Israel civilians - including so many small children - the other Israel bombing this hospital and killing 500.
Despite all the evidence that Hamas psychopaths did slaughter their way through the peace festival and various towns and settlements. And the proof of what it did to those women and children. We still get endless arguments and denials and nitpicking - you can't say that Hamas beheaded 20 children it was only 10 etc.
On the other hand we have this bullshit about Israel bombing a hospital. The literal word of the terrorists taken as gospel. And despite the obvious flaw in the lie - the hospital being patently not bombed - it is anyone questioning the lie who are condemned. Despite the media having to eat humble pie later.
Treating the Jews - not Israelis - differently to any other group - is anti-semitism. And we are seeing it on a global scale now. As the firebombings - successful and failed - of synagogues in Tunisia and Germany and elsewhere demonstrates.
Breaking - crisis recedes as little Rishi lands in Israel….
Pray tell. What does he think he’s doing there?
I would have thought that after the last 100 or so years the sensible thing for a British politician to do would be to keep as far away from Middle Eastern issues as possible!
Tamworth: LAB by 2600 votes Mid Beds: LAB by 500 votes on under 30% share.
TAMWORTH: I've tacked close to the local election indicators here, and I'm pretty confident Labour have enough in the tank.
The basis for the prediction is the 20 odd votes that Labour won the constituency by in the 2023 locals, plus the council by election that took place under the massive political shadow of the main by-election and showed a generic result of a further small percentage swing towards Labour. My result is Labour by around 8%.
The Con memo saying their vote share has halved could point to a larger Labour victory up to around 15%.
MID BEDS: The local election results from May are complicated by a large, Tory leaning, independent vote. Natively, LE results suggest Tory win, and you have to count a good part of the Ind vote swinging Lab and/or LD to get any other result.
But if you factor in such swing with Tories treading water on their LE vote shares, you do come up with something like the seat polling showing it neck and neck between Con and Lab.
I'm going that the various push and pull factors since then have balanced out and the constituency polling is close to the result.
Labour's win very possibly to be on an under 30% vote share, and Con to beat LD.
I'm well away from the local election results in predicting this, and last time I took a feeling in my water over LE results I undercooked the swing to Labour in Rutherglen, which LEs would have pointed to being comfortably over 10%.
You can make a case for any finishing order here and I'm not confident in my prediction.
Your reasoning seems sound and your prediction reasonable, but as you say there's a lot of uncertainty around these. The betting market seems to have picked up a late improvement in the Tories' chances in Mid Beds so this will be an interesting test of its ability to accurately aggregate real information versus acting as an echo chamber of ill-informed punters' gossip. A fascinating 24 hours awaits.
Breaking - crisis recedes as little Rishi lands in Israel….
Pray tell. What does he think he’s doing there?
I would have thought that after the last 100 or so years the sensible thing for a British politician to do would be to keep as far away from Middle Eastern issues as possible!
Being unavailable when the by-election results land.
Interesting details from the Trump fraud case. Suggests why he might be desperate to be re-elected.
Last year, Donald Trump owed $2,315,000 of ground rent at 40 Wall Street. An increase to $16,400,000 would be $14,085,000 higher than last year. That's a big problem for Trump. You can see here that his net operating income in 2022 was just $12,537,460... https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1714734689938821281
Even assuming he wasn't a big fraud his personal and business finances appear to be a completely chaotic basketcase, which serves no useful purposes other than to make things more complex, and despite his insistent boasts it seems like cash on hand is a perennial issue for him.
Another go at bagging some Saudi cash would probably come in handy.
Didn't his son in law get a billion plus from the Saudis? Trump must be raging that he missed out on grifting the big numbers.
There was a Michael Lewis interview about his new book yesterday. The book concerns Sam Bankman Fried who is currently being prosecuted for alleged fraud in relation to FTX.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
If Trump is willing to take cash money in order to not run, sign me up for a donation of £50….
You think he'd stick to the deal ?
There’s another £50 in it for him the day after nominations close….
Not as attractive as the potential Saudi cash, I suspect.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
You really are a wazzock. You cannot brand Labour voters and members as being a "genocide supporter". I would say that its outrageous, but its worse - its pathetic.
A touch of Plato syndrome about this. A once reasonable poster, who’s now just deranged.
The problem as usual is absolutism. Support for Israel must mean condemnation of Palestine and vice versa. Not true - we need to secure peace and security for both. My problem is that the hard left endlessly repeat "from the river to the sea" - a polite way to describe the same Jew genocide planned by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Iran.
Park the bullshit around this hospital non-bombing for a moment. The hard left are in support of Hamas and IJ firing rockets aimed at murdering civilians. This rocket murdered some of their own civilians but thats OK as Hamas wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible as well
And note how the world has treated the two alleged outrages. One is Hamas slaughtering in the most medieval ways thousands of Israel civilians - including so many small children - the other Israel bombing this hospital and killing 500.
Despite all the evidence that Hamas psychopaths did slaughter their way through the peace festival and various towns and settlements. And the proof of what it did to those women and children. We still get endless arguments and denials and nitpicking - you can't say that Hamas beheaded 20 children it was only 10 etc.
On the other hand we have this bullshit about Israel bombing a hospital. The literal word of the terrorists taken as gospel. And despite the obvious flaw in the lie - the hospital being patently not bombed - it is anyone questioning the lie who are condemned. Despite the media having to eat humble pie later.
Treating the Jews - not Israelis - differently to any other group - is anti-semitism. And we are seeing it on a global scale now. As the firebombings - successful and failed - of synagogues in Tunisia and Germany and elsewhere demonstrates.
I’d like this (agree with every word) but it’s just too depressing. It’s the historic deflection of so many autocratic governments, saying to their people, ‘don’t blame us for your problems, it’s all the fault of the Jews’.
Comments
Any possibility Sunak never gets to Tel Aviv., I wonder. Its a waste of time him being there anyway.
Members should have no part in this. It should be entirely down to the MPs themselves. ANything else and you are putting party before country.
More than 2,000 artists, actors and musicians in the UK, including Tilda Swinton, Steve Coogan, Charles Dance and Maxine Peake, signed the letter.
They called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for “our governments to end their military and political support for Israel’s actions”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/18/coogan-swinton-letter-condemns-israel-war-crimes-not-hamas/
".....the distribution by the Lib Dems of fake newspapers with misleading poll graphs...."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/18/people-are-looking-for-change-labour-eyes-byelection-clean-sweep-as-tories-go-to-ground
Some say he transcends life itself.
Others believe he IS life itself.
I know people who are big fans of party lists like to think otherwise, but there are a number of very obvious examples of people who (a) transcended party lines to get elected (Dick Taverne, Dr Richard Taylor or Peter Law), or (b) who got dramatically higher votes for their party than was the case after they stepped down (several LibDem MPs I could mention).
I could also point to Claire Wright, who managed more than 40% of the vote in East Devon in 2019, although that wasn't enough to grab the seat.
You're talking about two different things, though. The deal for choosing the party's leader is the payment of a few quid a year.
Activists are activists for quite different reasons.
Richard is quite correct.
The Israel has every tight to do that Party could of course also do better.
Never had Nick down as a genocide supporter.
You live and learn
Gosh, things really are upside down at the moment.
This piece by Raphael Behr is excellent. Let's all do our best to make sure that PB doesn't fall into the category of "polarised and monotonous, hysterical and portentous, all at the same time."
If Labour don't gain Tamworth, pile on a hung Parliament for the next election. If they do, they might just get an overall majority despite the formidable obstacles.
Ignore Mid Beds, which is essentially white noise. Tamworth is the key because it's got exactly the sort of electorate Labour need to be winning big to win power.
I've no idea what the result will be, even though I live nearby. What I would say is that you shouldn't run away with the idea Pincher had a personal vote - most people in the town disliked him because he was lazy, rude and incompetent as well as a creep. So any swing is a national swing, which also helps in extrapolating the result.
Apparently, he and Trump's people had serious discussions about Fried paying him $5bn not to run for President again. Fried was convinced that Trump was an existential danger to US democracy (he was right about this) and was willing to buy the risk off if the deal was enforceable. That seems to have been the hurdle at which it fell.
Fried came across from Lewis's description as an interesting, if more than slightly weird guy.
Bloody hell
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/maxine-peake-responds-to-row-over-claim-linking-george-floyd-death-to-israel/
Hope the foul weather doesn't disrupt the vote
Basically, he was a rich, entitled kid who thought he was a genius. He started making a money in a poorly- (actually, zero-) regulated space, and that attracted other investors and hangers-on. Because he was being successful, he felt that he did not need to have all the usual constraints that businesses suffer from, such as proper accounting procedures.
Most of all, there was no adult in the room at his companies. One of the good things the early investors in FB and Google did was put experienced businessmen on the board with the founders. SBF had nothing like that, and probably did not want such 'old school' interference.
As is often the case, it is a case of someone highly intelligent who is utterly thick when it comes to some important areas. And he will deservingly go to jail for a long time.
If he had been a competent fraudster, he could probably have kept the whole scheme going for many more years, if not decades.
His former partners are happily throwing him under the bus at the moment.
Then look at the morning after pictures. The hospital is completely intact bar a few broken windows immediately adjacent to the car park.
Unless <500 were squeezed into the small spot where the missile fragment landed, I call bullshit. There are cars in the same car park which are still neatly parked and didn't burn.
Which is such a wonderful and simple form of accounting.
The American criminal justice system is weird. Lewis commented that in this country we have lots of acquittals. In the US, for financial crimes, the conviction rate is over 99.5%, largely based on plea bargaining. Its a system where Fried going to trial is very much the exception. Faced with potentially horrendous penalties nearly everyone pleads. Its not a justice system to be proud of in my view.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-mulls-levy-on-solicitors-to-plug-64m-black-hole-at-axiom-ince/5117592.article
£600 each if we have to meet the whole amount.
Don't put coke and hookers through your business. Get a generic receipt for a "wellness retreat" instead...
Note: I'm not defending SBF. I made it clear he's a fraudster and that he should go to jail for a long time.
Tamworth: LAB by 2600 votes
Mid Beds: LAB by 500 votes on under 30% share.
TAMWORTH:
I've tacked close to the local election indicators here, and I'm pretty confident Labour have enough in the tank.
The basis for the prediction is the 20 odd votes that Labour won the constituency by in the 2023 locals, plus the council by election that took place under the massive political shadow of the main by-election and showed a generic result of a further small percentage swing towards Labour. My result is Labour by around 8%.
The Con memo saying their vote share has halved could point to a larger Labour victory up to around 15%.
MID BEDS:
The local election results from May are complicated by a large, Tory leaning, independent vote. Natively, LE results suggest Tory win, and you have to count a good part of the Ind vote swinging Lab and/or LD to get any other result.
But if you factor in such swing with Tories treading water on their LE vote shares, you do come up with something like the seat polling showing it neck and neck between Con and Lab.
I'm going that the various push and pull factors since then have balanced out and the constituency polling is close to the result.
Labour's win very possibly to be on an under 30% vote share, and Con to beat LD.
I'm well away from the local election results in predicting this, and last time I took a feeling in my water over LE results I undercooked the swing to Labour in Rutherglen, which LEs would have pointed to being comfortably over 10%.
You can make a case for any finishing order here and I'm not confident in my prediction.
with that.
As for your language labelling anyone who supported
the centre left polices of Jezza as cranks, Trotskyites Jezbollah.and worse.
You should look in the pathetic namecalling mirror.
Apparently.
Apart from as a gesture of support for the Israeli people after their suffered a terrorist atrocity, of course.
I personally think that claim should be retracted as it is monstrously unfair.
Park the bullshit around this hospital non-bombing for a moment. The hard left are in support of Hamas and IJ firing rockets aimed at murdering civilians. This rocket murdered some of their own civilians but thats OK as Hamas wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible as well
And note how the world has treated the two alleged outrages. One is Hamas slaughtering in the most medieval ways thousands of Israel civilians - including so many small children - the other Israel bombing this hospital and killing 500.
Despite all the evidence that Hamas psychopaths did slaughter their way through the peace festival and various towns and settlements. And the proof of what it did to those women and children. We still get endless arguments and denials and nitpicking - you can't say that Hamas beheaded 20 children it was only 10 etc.
On the other hand we have this bullshit about Israel bombing a hospital. The literal word of the terrorists taken as gospel. And despite the obvious flaw in the lie - the hospital being patently not bombed - it is anyone questioning the lie who are condemned. Despite the media having to eat humble pie later.
Treating the Jews - not Israelis - differently to any other group - is anti-semitism. And we are seeing it on a global scale now. As the firebombings - successful and failed - of synagogues in Tunisia and Germany and elsewhere demonstrates.
I would have thought that after the last 100 or so years the sensible thing for a British politician to do would be to keep as far away from Middle Eastern issues as possible!
And thanks for the header, Mike.
The first question that occurs is whether the Lib Dems will also be having their leader elected by MPs?
(I think there is a defence in that nearly all Lib Dem leaders in my lifetime have been recognisably sane.)
Yes, it was a real company
I see that NetFlix are putting up prices again.
Is there a killer reason I have not noticed for keeping the subscription open?
( I note that I haven't used it for quite some time.)
Compared to Amazon there don't seem to be many bundled benefits.