Categories
Options
Like Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak uses his chopper with reckless abandon – politicalbetting.com
Like Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak uses his chopper with reckless abandon – politicalbetting.com
EXCL: Rishi Sunak intervened to stop officials scrapping £40 million contract that provides him with “VIP” helicopter ridesMoD planned to spend cash elsewhereBut head of RAF Squadron which runs choppers says this was “reversed at the request” of the PM https://t.co/ZkgI8ExlaC
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think Sunak will come out of their spat a lot worse than Sir Keir will. Right now Sunak seems to be blowing himself up.
People mostly accept waste on the scale of thousands of pounds, and billions sort of merge into large number blah.
But we know that tens of millions is a lot of money
This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.
The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8
Anyone who prefers this mode of transport to catching a train is, in my view, totally bonkers.
https://youtu.be/kAG39jKi0lI?si=CAg8soI9n86jY1Gy
LAB: 44% (-1)
CON: 22% (=)
LDM: 12% (=)
REF: 9% (+1)
GRN: 7% (=)
via
@techneUK
, 13-14 Dec
(Changes with 7 Dec)
BJOFans please explain?
What a clown.
They sold it to schools, hospitals and care homes at cost only.
Admittedly, they made a decent mark up on selling it to other clients, but the owner took the view that he should do his bit to help out essential public services in the emergency.
His product was turned down by several hospital trusts in the West Midlands because they had contracted with another firm to buy a product that wasn't as good at a much higher price.
This had nothing to do with the fact one person on the board of this other company was married to somebody on the boards of these trusts...
That would get him some comedy gold...
Izzard deleted all those campaign tweets too. What an embarrassment 😂😂😂😂
https://x.com/wirespy22/status/1736402478160126148?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
https://www.nme.com/news/music/pink-hits-back-troll-compare-her-suzy-eddie-izzard-3496828
Edit: Ah ok I've seen your follow-up now. Very interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67742682
It's a start but perhaps shows the futility of the cult of generalist managers.
Does physics have axioms?
It's only a matter of time after this post before we're onto the verification principle and then we're in trouble.
"Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
I blame Beeching, personally.
"She was paid a salary of £330,000 and commuted to work from Aberdeen.
A rail insider said Ms Handforth had chosen to resign of her own accord after recognising the challenges of the role."
Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.
Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.
We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.
We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.
The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.
The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
How dare she resign just for being utterly shit and living hundreds of miles away from the thing she's in charge of?
That sets a really dangerous precedent.
Name a politician who hasn't or doesn't or wouldn't. After all, Blair stood on the 1983 Labour election manifesto which I'm sure he had to publicly support even though privately I'm sure he knew it was nonsense.
Sunak was loyal to Johnson right up to the point he stuck a knife in his back (along with Javid). Johnson was loyal to Cameron until he saw which way the wind was blowing on the EU and changed sides. He was loyal to May until flouncing as Foreign Secretary.
This is how politics works - it's a rough trade as someone once said. Sometimes you have to publicly support a political direction in which you aren't personally vested in order to have the chance to be able to change that at a later date. It's fine to be consistent - some claim Corbyn has been consistent but let's not forget he stood on the Labour Manifesto in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and do you think he personally supported it?
You can have all the principles you like but without the power or the means to enforce them they're pointless.
Personally, I'm glad not everyone abandoned positioning themselves for prominence, else we'd have genuinely only been able to choose between Blair era retreads and Rebecca Long-Bailey in 2020.
And, what the actual hell kind of a choice would we be facing now?
What could possibly be more ruthlessly pragmatist than biding your time.
As a politician? Relentlessly optimistic, generous, idealistic, and therefore ultimately probably likely to be a failure.
Or maybe you are going with the competence angle? To which I would reply that he may be more competent at legislating, but that's no reason for enthusiasm if you have no faith that the legislation is the right legislation. Indeed, better malign qnd incompetent than malign and competent.
D'you mean Starmer?
Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.
I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.
Anyway, I have an organ to fiddle with.
And, of course, a large musical instrument to play.
One of them has an eight foot horn on the full swell. So naff off, all you losers who think 12 inches is big.
But I'll leave that to your imagination...
If he promised to not visit the UK if Starmer becomes PM... well... I'd definitely want to vote for Starmer.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."
I am not religious, not at all anymore but there is profound truth in that. It is a fabulous philosophy for life.
The fact that Labour is essentially offering the same prospectus as the current Government - hosing down pensioners with cash, tax rises and spending cuts for everyone else - and that its electoral offer therefore boils down to Continuity Conservatism, delivered slightly less incompetently, continues to receive remarkably little attention.
Labour's economic prospectus - essentially, that it will magic growth out of austerity and prayer and this will solve all of our other problems - is as fantastical as the sunlit uplands that "Brexit freedoms" were supposed to bring about. Relieving poverty and doing something meaningful to tackle the tsunami of working age sick cases - largely caused by obesity and mental ill-health, much of which can also be traced back to impoverishment - is a necessary precondition for economic success. How in the name of God are we meant to succeed when a fifth of the working population is part-time or living off benefits because they are knackered, and when we don't have the housing or other infrastructure to solve the problem by importing five or ten million fit immigrants?
Dealing with these problems, along with the tremendous complications resulting from the collapse of health and social care provision, has to come first, and therefore the money to help tackle it can only come from a pretty thoroughgoing program of redistribution, which Labour would have presented as just in the past but now regards as the work of the Devil. The current version of Labour is an essentially conservative party, focusing on the conservation of the wealth of those - principally the minted grey vote - who believe that they shouldn't be asked to pay for anything and whom Starmer and Reeves are too afraid to ask to pay for anything, either. And so on we go, circling the plughole.
The current incarnation (to this observer) of Conservative thinking is social conservatism mixed with economic liberalism whereas previous incarnations have been both more socially liberal and less economically liberal (protectionism for example).
What is this harm the vicar and congregation (of which you were one, as sometimes am I) could do as a result of encountering this text?
If there's anyone here who's delighted about the prospect, can you tell us which Labour policy you're most looking forward to?
Everyone got drunker and drunker as the day went
on until the pilots eventually started racing each
other. Superb
I live in hope too, that the industrial scale corruption of post May governments, will be dialled down, just a notch.
I have laughed more than that only a few times, usually on magic mushrooms or the like
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
The last line in particular is hauntingly good
Rather hilariously the chopper was met by ambulance at the helipad, and after being complicatedly transferred, it then took about 15 seconds to drive to the A&E dept.
I have to say the blokes in the copter were good value. Amused and sympathetic at the same time.
Written down in cold black and white it isn't remotely funny, but his timing, his phrasing, his persona, the diffident shrugging, somehow made it the funniest thing I'd ever heard. I still don't know how. And it had to be seen live to get the full effect