Well I've not had much positive to say about Cameron in recent years, but after mulling over todays appointment I've got to say I admire his sense of duty and he has got my respect.
I doubt there's much in it for him. He doesn't need the money and he's given up what I'm sure was a quiet and content life with Sam and the kids to return to hurly burly of front line politics and the Tory Party in it's current state of shambles.
Well done David Cameron.
He also got a peerage out of it, gets Chevening and 1 Carlton Gardens, lots of all expenses paid foreign travel, accomodation in ambassadors' historic residences and top quality dinners too and he isn't an MP anymore or party leader and PM so doesn't need to care much what the voters and media think of him either
It's a pretty good deal. Let's be honest, Foreign Secretary is not a top Cabinet job anymore really, anything truly important the PM would take centre stage and everything will be run by them, so it's hanging on as a Great Office for historical reasons.
I like Cameron fine, but if he was looking to get back in the game more like Tony Blair, this would be a good way of doing so after 7 years keeping mostly quiet and making money.
I do wonder whether Rishi will empower him a bit more though, to try and focus himself on domestic politics.
For the record, Cameron gets £115,000 a year as PM pension. That's £2k a week just for being alive
He will also get at least the ministerial chunk of the FS salary - £80k? Will he also get money as a Lord?
So already he's on £200,000 a year minimum. Presumably he has multiple other incomes from companies, consultancy, etc. Also he will live the next year without spending tuppence, he gets a free country house, a free London home, he will have endless free travel and luxe accommodation
He's going to absolutely mint it
Lords can claim per day they are in, something like £300 a day I think.
He may be in a lot, he may not, but I'd think the value is more in refreshing his contacts and connections for a post 2024 career, as well as signalling his willingness to be put forward for some nice international gigs, than whatever he can claim for.
My daughter has insisted I install an APP called 'been'.
You put in the countries where you have - err - been.
Apparently I've been to 16% of the world. 33 countries.
Who can beat that? Leon obvs.
(We have defined 'been' as staying at least one night (i.e. not just passing through).)
An acquaintance of mine visited every capital city in Europe. An easy task, you might think.
Except he wanted to drink a pint of Guinness in each one. Some were easy - say, Dublin or London. Others were more difficult, especially in eastern Europe. One (and annoyingly I cannot remember which) required a little subterfuge.
As his quest became known, he'd be greeted by people with a pint of Guinness ready for him. The order he visited was random, picked out of a hat.
I’ve done 91 countries on “been”. My ambition is to hit at least 100 before I keel over. Should do it now with ease (ins’allah)
The main gaps are central and west Africa, Central Asia and Central America, and lots of lots of islands (esp in the Caribbean and Polynesia)
Now I’m going to Colombia in March I can knock off a few there
My issue with things like this is they sort imply that being well-travelled means playing Pokémon Go but with countries. But you could travel only within the USA for decades and experience an extraordinary cultural and geographical diversity.
I’m on 33 fwiw, but the last time I went somewhere new was 2019 (Sweden).
I'm on 49 I think and similarly haven't been anywhere new for a while. My work seems to take me to the same places repeatedly, and it's difficult and expensive going to new places with three children. I've never been anywhere in Africa, and few places in South America or South East Asia either, so there's still plenty of this beautiful world to see.
51 for me at present. Nowhere in South America, and only 8 in Africa.
Chile is magnificent, especially the Atacama desert, and the Iguazu falls in Arg/Brazil are probably the greatest single natural wonder on the planet. Niagara Falls and Victoria Falls aren't in the same league
I highly recommend skiing in the Andes.
Santiago is rather forgettable.
i climbed to 18,600 foot in the Andes! TBH We did drive the first 16,500 feet, but still an incredible experience
Yeah Santiago isn't up to much. But most large Latin American cities are disappointing. Buenos Aires, Lima, Mexico City, meh
La Paz is the best (of large LatAm cities that I have seen) because it is so freaking WEIRD, at an insane altitude yet also down in a mad valley, and full of women wearing bowler hats because one week the British Empire had too many of these hats (true story)
Well I've not had much positive to say about Cameron in recent years, but after mulling over todays appointment I've got to say I admire his sense of duty and he has got my respect.
I doubt there's much in it for him. He doesn't need the money and he's given up what I'm sure was a quiet and content life with Sam and the kids to return to hurly burly of front line politics and the Tory Party in it's current state of shambles.
Well done David Cameron.
He also got a peerage out of it, gets Chevening and 1 Carlton Gardens, lots of all expenses paid foreign travel, accomodation in ambassadors' historic residences and top quality dinners too and he isn't an MP anymore or party leader and PM so doesn't need to care much what the voters and media think of him either
It's a pretty good deal. Let's be honest, Foreign Secretary is not a top Cabinet job anymore really, anything truly important the PM would take centre stage and everything will be run by them, so it's hanging on as a Great Office for historical reasons.
I like Cameron fine, but if he was looking to get back in the game more like Tony Blair, this would be a good way of doing so after 7 years keeping mostly quiet and making money.
I do wonder whether Rishi will empower him a bit more though, to try and focus himself on domestic politics.
It would be a truly weird direction to go in at this point. I saw the theory he knows he's lost and so is at least trying to lose in a way which history will look more kindly on, but I don't really buy that, or why he'd need Cameron for it if he was.
At this point I think going for broke on red meat to the base might be more successful than trying to recapture the Cameron era days which are now gone, but it will be very interesting if he really does go full throated back to that time.
For the record, Cameron gets £115,000 a year as PM pension. That's £2k a week just for being alive
He will also get at least the ministerial chunk of the FS salary - £80k? Will he also get money as a Lord?
So already he's on £200,000 a year minimum. Presumably he has multiple other incomes from companies, consultancy, etc. Also he will live the next year without spending tuppence, he gets a free country house, a free London home, he will have endless free travel and luxe accommodation
He's going to absolutely mint it
Lords can claim per day they are in, something like £300 a day I think.
He may be in a lot, he may not, but I'd think the value is more in refreshing his contacts and connections for a post 2024 career, as well as signalling his willingness to be put forward for some nice international gigs, that whatever he can claim for.
If Cameron declared he wasn't going to take the FS salary I would have more respect for him, and he certainly needs respect (not from me, but in general). And yet, I bet he doesn't: he looks greedy because he is greedy?
With every hour that passes this feels like a worse appointment by Sunak, that will impact negatively
Some perspective on your PM's height: "Tyrone Curtis "Muggsy" Bogues (born January 9, 1965) is an American former basketball player. The shortest player ever to play in the National Basketball Association (NBA), the 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) Bogues played point guard for four teams during his 14-season career in the NBA. Although best known for his ten seasons with the Charlotte Hornets, he also played for the Washington Bullets, Golden State Warriors, and Toronto Raptors. Bogues finished in the top seven in assists in six consecutive seasons (1989–1995), and in the top ten in steals in three of those seasons. He had 146 career NBA double-doubles.[1] After his NBA career, he served as head coach of the now-defunct Charlotte Sting of the WNBA. Despite standing at only 5 feet 3 inches, Bogues had a surprising defensive ability. He blocked 39 shots throughout his NBA career, including one from 7-foot-tall Patrick Ewing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues
So being short isn't an insuperable handicap, even in the NBA.
(A few of you may be interested in learning more about his life. Among other things he overcame a troubled childhood.)
The last point is crucial. This is a desperate move that might not even deliver the Blue Wall seats, precisely because Cameron will remind Remainers of Brexit, as he is THE man that cluelessly enabled it
For the record, Cameron gets £115,000 a year as PM pension. That's £2k a week just for being alive
He will also get at least the ministerial chunk of the FS salary - £80k? Will he also get money as a Lord?
So already he's on £200,000 a year minimum. Presumably he has multiple other incomes from companies, consultancy, etc. Also he will live the next year without spending tuppence, he gets a free country house, a free London home, he will have endless free travel and luxe accommodation
He's going to absolutely mint it
Lords can claim per day they are in, something like £300 a day I think.
He may be in a lot, he may not, but I'd think the value is more in refreshing his contacts and connections for a post 2024 career, as well as signalling his willingness to be put forward for some nice international gigs, that whatever he can claim for.
If Cameron declared he wasn't going to take the FS salary I would have more respect for him, and he certainly needs respect (not from me, but in general). And yet, I bet he doesn't: he looks greedy because he is greedy?
With every hour that passes this feels like a worse appointment by Sunak, that will impact negatively
I do wonder if national leaders just get a bit used to hanging around the truly super rich, and so even when they are perfectly rich themselves feel the need to cash in even at cost of reputation. Once you hang out with Jeff Bezos or some Saudi Prince a few tens of millions just no longer cuts it.
May doesn't seem that way inclined although has turned a tidy profit on the speaking circuit, and Truss never got the opportunity to hob nob with the global elites, but Cameron on a quiet basis was keen to take money for gigs, Blair is quite graspy too. Boris just never seems as wealthy as he should be.
My daughter has insisted I install an APP called 'been'.
You put in the countries where you have - err - been.
Apparently I've been to 16% of the world. 33 countries.
Who can beat that? Leon obvs.
(We have defined 'been' as staying at least one night (i.e. not just passing through).)
An acquaintance of mine visited every capital city in Europe. An easy task, you might think.
Except he wanted to drink a pint of Guinness in each one. Some were easy - say, Dublin or London. Others were more difficult, especially in eastern Europe. One (and annoyingly I cannot remember which) required a little subterfuge.
As his quest became known, he'd be greeted by people with a pint of Guinness ready for him. The order he visited was random, picked out of a hat.
I’ve done 91 countries on “been”. My ambition is to hit at least 100 before I keel over. Should do it now with ease (ins’allah)
The main gaps are central and west Africa, Central Asia and Central America, and lots of lots of islands (esp in the Caribbean and Polynesia)
Now I’m going to Colombia in March I can knock off a few there
My issue with things like this is they sort imply that being well-travelled means playing Pokémon Go but with countries. But you could travel only within the USA for decades and experience an extraordinary cultural and geographical diversity.
I’m on 33 fwiw, but the last time I went somewhere new was 2019 (Sweden).
I'm on 49 I think and similarly haven't been anywhere new for a while. My work seems to take me to the same places repeatedly, and it's difficult and expensive going to new places with three children. I've never been anywhere in Africa, and few places in South America or South East Asia either, so there's still plenty of this beautiful world to see.
51 for me at present. Nowhere in South America, and only 8 in Africa.
Chile is magnificent, especially the Atacama desert, and the Iguazu falls in Arg/Brazil are probably the greatest single natural wonder on the planet. Niagara Falls and Victoria Falls aren't in the same league
I highly recommend skiing in the Andes.
Santiago is rather forgettable.
i climbed to 18,600 foot in the Andes! TBH We did drive the first 16,500 feet, but still an incredible experience
Yeah Santiago isn't up to much. But most large Latin American cities are disappointing. Buenos Aires, Lima, Mexico City, meh
La Paz is the best (of large LatAm cities that I have seen) because it is so freaking WEIRD, at an insane altitude yet also down in a mad valley, and full of women wearing bowler hats because one week the British Empire had too many of these hats (true story)
I spent a month in Chile when I was fourteen. My dad, a social worker in Doncaster, had a colleague who had been exiled under Pinochet* and wound up living in Sheffield (which had a small but significant Chilean emigré community) and working in Donny, of all places.
After Pinochet went and he was allowed back, we went over and stayed with his family in Santiago - including trips south to Chiloe, a memorable visit to Valparaiso and few days up at a chalet in the Andes belonging a mafioso cousin. Lovely time, lovely place and I have a strong affinity with the place as a result, though sadly have never been back.
*During that odd episode where Pinochet was under arrest, I read my dad’s friend’s testimony describing his interrogation and torture. Haunting.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
Well I've not had much positive to say about Cameron in recent years, but after mulling over todays appointment I've got to say I admire his sense of duty and he has got my respect.
I doubt there's much in it for him. He doesn't need the money and he's given up what I'm sure was a quiet and content life with Sam and the kids to return to hurly burly of front line politics and the Tory Party in it's current state of shambles.
Well done David Cameron.
He also got a peerage out of it, gets Chevening and 1 Carlton Gardens, lots of all expenses paid foreign travel, accomodation in ambassadors' historic residences and top quality dinners too and he isn't an MP anymore or party leader and PM so doesn't need to care much what the voters and media think of him either
It's a pretty good deal. Let's be honest, Foreign Secretary is not a top Cabinet job anymore really, anything truly important the PM would take centre stage and everything will be run by them, so it's hanging on as a Great Office for historical reasons.
I like Cameron fine, but if he was looking to get back in the game more like Tony Blair, this would be a good way of doing so after 7 years keeping mostly quiet and making money.
I do wonder whether Rishi will empower him a bit more though, to try and focus himself on domestic politics.
I would imagine he'll be taking the Lord Mandelson role from 2008>2010 and appearing for the government in media outings quite often.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
The question is whether the Tories go lower than the 165 seats they won in 1997. Quite possibly.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
But they’re replacing the “nutters” with greedy unelected spivs that everyone hates. Look at Cameron’s polling
He might save two seats in the south but lose five in the north
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
The question is whether the Tories go lower than the 165 seats they won in 1997. Quite possibly.
100-150 looks like the right ballpark, at the moment, to me
Not a Canuck style wipe out but still a generational catastrophe
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
But they’re replacing the “nutters” with greedy unelected spivs that everyone hates. Look at Cameron’s polling
He might save two seats in the south but lose five in the north
Interesting how those who usually dislike anything to do with the House of Lords are entirely silent on Cameron being appointed, just because they happen to prefer his politics to people like Braverman.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
But they’re replacing the “nutters” with greedy unelected spivs that everyone hates. Look at Cameron’s polling
He might save two seats in the south but lose five in the north
Interesting how those who usually dislike anything to do with the House of Lords are entirely silent on Cameron being appointed, just because they happen to prefer his politics to people like Braverman.
From the WaPo: "The Republican presidential campaign of Nikki Haley on Monday announced plans to launch a $10 million ad buy in Iowa and New Hampshire starting in early December as she jockeys with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to become the main GOP alternative to former president Donald Trump." https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/11/13/nikki-haley-ad-campaign/
That's a large amount of money for such small states.
It will be interesting to see whether she has good get-out-the-vote organizations in both states.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
The question is whether the Tories go lower than the 165 seats they won in 1997. Quite possibly.
100-150 looks like the right ballpark, at the moment, to me
Not a Canuck style wipe out but still a generational catastrophe
At this point I'd guess less than 100 seats. Canvassing returns in the south are apocalyptic; canvassing returns in the Red Wall-ish north and Midlands are non-existent (because the associations are moribund and don't have enough active members to run decent campaign sessions).
The issue is not that people love Starmer, it is that they fucking hate the Tories, and blame them for a lot of the problems the country is facing. Hate is obviously a much more powerful motivator than love, but it also means there will be massive tactical voting, because voters will just want to remove their local Tory rather than caring too much who replaces them.
There is an awful lot of copium coming from Westminster-based pundits and MPs with their heads in the sand, assuming the polls will narrow or that the public will decide to forgive the last few years of fuckup because "that's just what happens". No, it happens if there's meaningful improvement in personal circumstances or a compelling reason that the government is better than the alternative. Neither is likely; the most probable scenario for the next twelve months is a continuation of the polling trend for the last four months, and the Tories getting totally fucked.
Newsnight pundit: Sunak might appoint Claire Coutinho as CotE before the next election in order to prevent Rachel Reeves from being the first female holder of the office.
I went to checkout Farage on 'celeb market - largely looking to back as a trading bet if long enough as I would imagine he'll be kept in enough for field to shorten. Anyway he doesn't seem worth touching one way or t'other atm.
But what does seem worth it is backing Grace Dent at these prices above 50, no? Am currently on - admittedly small size due to market being negligible - at an average price of 69. Admittedly I don't watch the thing but my gut feel is she's the kind of person who the kind of person who watches that sort of thing will like but haven't heard of yet. Also lots of friends in the meedja to talk her up.
"The number of people injured in the Russian shelling of Kherson has risen to 10, with two people killed, according to the regional military administration.
Two medical workers and an 81-year-old patient were injured in a strike on a hospital."
Russia attacks a hospital (in Ukraine, Syria, etc), and there's silence from the left. Why?
There's silence from everyone on here (left and right) until you posted that.
Why? Because a) most of us didn't know it had happened and b) we are, sadly, suffering war atrocity fatigue.
Why you think this is a left/right issue baffles me.
Because we just saw a massive march over what's happening in Gaza, with lots of talk about hospitals being attacked, yet Russia has, for many years, attacked hospitals in various countries.
But there's silence from those same people. No protests, no marches.
If it was "war atrocity fatigue", then Israel/Gaza should be the victim of it; not Ukraine. As Russia has been doing this for years to various countries. It's a policy of theirs to attack healthcare infrastructure.
"Over that period, there were 292 attacks that damaged or destroyed 218 hospitals and clinics, 181 attacks on other health infrastructure (such as pharmacies, blood centres, and dental clinics), and 65 attacks on ambulances. There were also 86 attacks on healthcare workers, with 62 killed and 52 injured."
You think the left are pro-Russia? I think the far right are more so.
Tell that to Corbyn and his mates.
So let's get this right. In your view, Russia hits medical facilities for years, as policy, and it is ignored by the protestors. It i reported, but there are no protests against Russia. None. Nada.
Then Israel is attacked, and it goes after terrorists using hospitals as cover. There are massive protests and "think of the babies!"
Then Russia attacks another hospital. "Don't you know we have war atrocity fatigue?"
No. It's rubbish. Israel is evidently a special case, whilst Russia is ignored. There will be many reasons for that, but don't deny a major one: Jews are different.
Thanks, David Cameron! Because you accidentally took us out of the EU, you and your families can now be exposed to more toxic chemicals than our EU neighbours!:
Isn’t it delightful to have all that yummy sovereignty so we can cock-a-snook at those red-tape entangled, sclerotic Europeans, and instead poison ourselves and our country in a dynamic, business-friendly way. Yay Brexit. Those benefits just keep on piling up.
I mean it's been obvious since September 2022 when Mad Lizzie saw off our dear old Queen and then destroyed the economy that the Tories were done for at the next election...
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
The question is whether the Tories go lower than the 165 seats they won in 1997. Quite possibly.
100-150 looks like the right ballpark, at the moment, to me
Not a Canuck style wipe out but still a generational catastrophe
At this point I'd guess less than 100 seats. Canvassing returns in the south are apocalyptic; canvassing returns in the Red Wall-ish north and Midlands are non-existent (because the associations are moribund and don't have enough active members to run decent campaign sessions).
The issue is not that people love Starmer, it is that they fucking hate the Tories, and blame them for a lot of the problems the country is facing. Hate is obviously a much more powerful motivator than love, but it also means there will be massive tactical voting, because voters will just want to remove their local Tory rather than caring too much who replaces them.
There is an awful lot of copium coming from Westminster-based pundits and MPs with their heads in the sand, assuming the polls will narrow or that the public will decide to forgive the last few years of fuckup because "that's just what happens". No, it happens if there's meaningful improvement in personal circumstances or a compelling reason that the government is better than the alternative. Neither is likely; the most probable scenario for the next twelve months is a continuation of the polling trend for the last four months, and the Tories getting totally fucked.
In this case, past performance is no probably no guide to future returns. After a Tory government that systematically trashed most of the guidelines and quite a few of the rules in a way that was unprecedented, it seems that the electorate is considering giving an unprecedented punishment to the Tories in return.
If we believe the canvass data in the blue wall, the Tories are clearly in for a shellacking. If we are insisting on precedents, I think the top end could be 1997. The bottom end? The fate of the Liberals in the late 1920s.
Thanks, David Cameron! Because you accidentally took us out of the EU, you and your families can now be exposed to more toxic chemicals than our EU neighbours!:
Isn’t it delightful to have all that yummy sovereignty so we can cock-a-snook at those red-tape entangled, sclerotic Europeans, and instead poison ourselves and our country in a dynamic, business-friendly way. Yay Brexit. Those benefits just keep on piling up.
That depends entirely on whether the EU decisions are rational, of course.
If we are talking their chemical regulations brought in a few years ago, some of it was loopy.
Whether Rishi and the Gang can do better ... remains to be seen.
Comments
He may be in a lot, he may not, but I'd think the value is more in refreshing his contacts and connections for a post 2024 career, as well as signalling his willingness to be put forward for some nice international gigs, than whatever he can claim for.
Yeah Santiago isn't up to much. But most large Latin American cities are disappointing. Buenos Aires, Lima, Mexico City, meh
La Paz is the best (of large LatAm cities that I have seen) because it is so freaking WEIRD, at an insane altitude yet also down in a mad valley, and full of women wearing bowler hats because one week the British Empire had too many of these hats (true story)
At this point I think going for broke on red meat to the base might be more successful than trying to recapture the Cameron era days which are now gone, but it will be very interesting if he really does go full throated back to that time.
@alexwickham
— Tory strategist says Sunak has given up on red wall and is focusing on mitigating defeat by shoring up the southern vote
— 2019 coalition now off the table, they say
— they warn DC is not necessarily popular with Remainers who blame him for Brexit"
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1724163225485283646
With every hour that passes this feels like a worse appointment by Sunak, that will impact negatively
"Tyrone Curtis "Muggsy" Bogues (born January 9, 1965) is an American former basketball player. The shortest player ever to play in the National Basketball Association (NBA), the 5 ft 3 in (1.60 m) Bogues played point guard for four teams during his 14-season career in the NBA. Although best known for his ten seasons with the Charlotte Hornets, he also played for the Washington Bullets, Golden State Warriors, and Toronto Raptors. Bogues finished in the top seven in assists in six consecutive seasons (1989–1995), and in the top ten in steals in three of those seasons. He had 146 career NBA double-doubles.[1] After his NBA career, he served as head coach of the now-defunct Charlotte Sting of the WNBA. Despite standing at only 5 feet 3 inches, Bogues had a surprising defensive ability. He blocked 39 shots throughout his NBA career, including one from 7-foot-tall Patrick Ewing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muggsy_Bogues
So being short isn't an insuperable handicap, even in the NBA.
(A few of you may be interested in learning more about his life. Among other things he overcame a troubled childhood.)
May doesn't seem that way inclined although has turned a tidy profit on the speaking circuit, and Truss never got the opportunity to hob nob with the global elites, but Cameron on a quiet basis was keen to take money for gigs, Blair is quite graspy too. Boris just never seems as wealthy as he should be.
No idea on Brown though.
After Pinochet went and he was allowed back, we went over and stayed with his family in Santiago - including trips south to Chiloe, a memorable visit to Valparaiso and few days up at a chalet in the Andes belonging a mafioso cousin. Lovely time, lovely place and I have a strong affinity with the place as a result, though sadly have never been back.
*During that odd episode where Pinochet was under arrest, I read my dad’s friend’s testimony describing his interrogation and torture. Haunting.
But if they they remove most of the weirdos, oddballs and nutters from the Cabinet and prove they can govern competently for a year they might still be able to save themselves from a meltdown and achieve a respectable defeat.
Which would leave them still in the game for 2028/2029.
"— BUT if they lose on Weds some Tories think Sunak could task his new foreign secretary with negotiating carve outs from the ECHR
— that would mean another Cameron renegotiation with Europe a decade on from his last ill-fated effort… imagine."
Oh for f**k sake. Not again.
He might save two seats in the south but lose five in the north
Not a Canuck style wipe out but still a generational catastrophe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/11/13/nikki-haley-ad-campaign/
That's a large amount of money for such small states.
It will be interesting to see whether she has good get-out-the-vote organizations in both states.
The issue is not that people love Starmer, it is that they fucking hate the Tories, and blame them for a lot of the problems the country is facing. Hate is obviously a much more powerful motivator than love, but it also means there will be massive tactical voting, because voters will just want to remove their local Tory rather than caring too much who replaces them.
There is an awful lot of copium coming from Westminster-based pundits and MPs with their heads in the sand, assuming the polls will narrow or that the public will decide to forgive the last few years of fuckup because "that's just what happens". No, it happens if there's meaningful improvement in personal circumstances or a compelling reason that the government is better than the alternative. Neither is likely; the most probable scenario for the next twelve months is a continuation of the polling trend for the last four months, and the Tories getting totally fucked.
Simon Jenkins"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/13/david-cameron-cabinet-suella-braverman-rishi-sunak
I went to checkout Farage on 'celeb market - largely looking to back as a trading bet if long enough as I would imagine he'll be kept in enough for field to shorten. Anyway he doesn't seem worth touching one way or t'other atm.
But what does seem worth it is backing Grace Dent at these prices above 50, no? Am currently on - admittedly small size due to market being negligible - at an average price of 69. Admittedly I don't watch the thing but my gut feel is she's the kind of person who the kind of person who watches that sort of thing will like but haven't heard of yet. Also lots of friends in the meedja to talk her up.
Thoughts?
So let's get this right. In your view, Russia hits medical facilities for years, as policy, and it is ignored by the protestors. It i reported, but there are no protests against Russia. None. Nada.
Then Israel is attacked, and it goes after terrorists using hospitals as cover. There are massive protests and "think of the babies!"
Then Russia attacks another hospital. "Don't you know we have war atrocity fatigue?"
No. It's rubbish. Israel is evidently a special case, whilst Russia is ignored. There will be many reasons for that, but don't deny a major one: Jews are different.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/14/uk-to-loosen-post-brexit-chemical-regulations-further
Isn’t it delightful to have all that yummy sovereignty so we can cock-a-snook at those red-tape entangled, sclerotic Europeans, and instead poison ourselves and our country in a dynamic, business-friendly way. Yay Brexit. Those benefits just keep on piling up.
If we believe the canvass data in the blue wall, the Tories are clearly in for a shellacking. If we are insisting on precedents, I think the top end could be 1997. The bottom end? The fate of the Liberals in the late 1920s.
If we are talking their chemical regulations brought in a few years ago, some of it was loopy.
Whether Rishi and the Gang can do better ... remains to be seen.