Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Conflicts of interest – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,010
edited January 22 in General
imageConflicts of interest – politicalbetting.com

At the heart of most scandals is a conflict of interest, often more than one, which has been allowed to develop, not mitigated or managed, or simply ignored. Being able to recognise these is essential to good public administration. It is essential to good legislation (a header could be written about the policy corruption inherent in governments funding lobby groups to promote policies the government wants, then consulting with only these groups who, unsurprisingly, agree wholeheartedly with the policies suggested. Scotland seems peculiarly prone to this form of cronyism.)

Read the full story here

«13456710

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,314
    edited January 15
    I feel like an idiot for all the times I've recused myself because of a conflict of interest, Caesar's wife and all that.

    Perhaps I should have followed the Post Office example then again there is an absolute certainty that I would not do well in prison.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,827
    1st given mods must be disqualified.
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    This may just be froth, but the local news blog (I linked to their election piece earlier) is claiming David Cameron spoke to a postmaster in his constituency who resigned after a Horizon incident back in 2009...

    https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1745760429735825635
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    Those are some spectacular conflicts, Cyclefree.
    Have they been elsewhere reported so clearly ?

    The overlaps between Post Office, CPS and Ministry of Justice are disturbing.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,799

    I feel like an idiot for all the times I've recused myself because of a conflict of interest, Caesar's wife and all that.

    Perhaps I should have followed the Post Office example then again there is an absolute certainty that I would not do well in prison.

    The problem is, you're one of the people to whom the rules apply. Jeffreys is not.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,103
    I suspect a fair number of scandals are just motivated by the desire to cover up sheer incompetence.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904
    edited January 15
    Who is this @Cyclefree, challenging the quango jobs for the boys & girls merry go round ?! I'll assure her Simon Jeffreys is a jolly good chap.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,314
    edited January 15
    Sean_F said:

    I feel like an idiot for all the times I've recused myself because of a conflict of interest, Caesar's wife and all that.

    Perhaps I should have followed the Post Office example then again there is an absolute certainty that I would not do well in prison.

    The problem is, you're one of the people to whom the rules apply. Jeffreys is not.
    Ironically I set a lot of the rules at work and to quote Hot Fuzz, I am Judge Judy and executioner.

    Which reminds me I have to update our whistleblower policies and procedure.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,042
    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
  • Options
    ScarpiaScarpia Posts: 28
    edited January 15
    Detailed constituency percentage shares of vote from today's YouGov/Telegraph MRP poll (in case no-one has already posted)

    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/YouGov_MRP_January_2024_results.csv
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,255
    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    There should surely be a rule that individuals with directorships of public bodies not be allowed to hold other board positions with potentially conflicting interests ?

    The Post Office scandal has been public knowledge, one way or another, for at least a decade. How were these appointments allowed ?
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,679

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,904
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
    Don't worry, I've only bought 6 or 7 items from Temu so far.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,042
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
    You're out of touch with the level of wealth and domestic consumption there is in Asia.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    Nigelb said:

    There should surely be a rule that individuals with directorships of public bodies not be allowed to hold other board positions with potentially conflicting interests ?

    The Post Office scandal has been public knowledge, one way or another, for at least a decade. How were these appointments allowed ?

    Apart from anything else, they will have been required to sign regular declarations on conflicts of interest.
    Fat lot of use that seems to have been.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505
    On Topic?

    Plenty of stuff - and guff - in media this MLK Day re: tonight's Iowa Republican precinct caucuses; best wait for tonight's results & etc.

    In the meantime . . .

    New York Times ($) - In Race to Replace George Santos, Financial Questions Re-emerge
    Mazi Pilip, the Republican candidate running in New York’s Third District, drew scrutiny after her initial financial disclosure was missing required information.

    The Republican nominee in a special House election to replace George Santos in New York provided a hazy glimpse into her personal finances this week, submitting a sworn financial statement to Congress that prompted questions and led her to amend the filing.

    The little-known candidate, Mazi Pilip, reported between $1 million and $5.2 million in assets, largely comprising her husband’s medical practice and Bitcoin investments. In an unusual disclosure, she said the couple owed and later repaid as much as $250,000 to the I.R.S. last year.

    But the initial financial report Ms. Pilip filed with the House Ethics Committee on Wednesday appeared to be missing other important required information, including whether the assets were owned solely by herself or her husband, Dr. Adalbert Pilip, or whether they were owned jointly.

    And despite making past statements that she stopped working there in 2021 when she ran for the Nassau County Legislature, Ms. Pilip reported receiving a $50,000 salary from the family medical practice in 2022 and 2023.

    The inconsistencies seemed nowhere near the level of Mr. Santos’s widespread misstatements, which prompted federal prosecutors to charge him with falsifying congressional records before he was expelled. But after inquiries from The New York Times, Ms. Pilip materially amended the statement on Friday.

    The updated paperwork disclosed for the first time that she had a legislative pension; identified her husband as the sole owner of the medical practice, New York Comprehensive Medical Care; and disclosed previously unreported investments and liabilities, including at least $50,000 in medical school loans for Dr. Pilip.

    Ms. Pilip also revised her earned income, reporting that she had earned far less from the medical practice: $13,472 in 2022 and nothing in 2023. (She earned $80,000 as a local lawmaker.)

    Her campaign played down the initial omissions as innocent mistakes by a team working on an abbreviated schedule before next month’s special election. . . .

    Ethics experts said the changes warranted further study. All House candidates must file disclosure forms annually, attesting that the information is “true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief” at risk of prosecution.

    “The canary in the mine can be discrepancies on their financial disclosure statements,” said Kedric Payne, the senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center. . . .
    Flag Quote · Like
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,146
    @Cyclefree in her excellent thread header notes in passing that the Scottish government is "peculiarly prone to this form of cronyism."

    A pinnacle in that regard was surely met in the context of the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices who are proposing that such practices should be banned in Scotland. Wings over Scotland, in an excellent piece of research, showed that all 15 of the members of this expert committee were activists opposed to such practices and a majority were employed by or members of organisations funded largely by the Scottish Government.

    They are now trying to hide who was on the committee. I find this surprising, surely the Scottish Government is well beyond embarrassment, but even they perhaps have some sense of shame:
    https://wingsoverscotland.com/down-the-memory-hole-again/

    It's well worth a read, it goes beyond funny.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855
    Excellent piece Mrs @Cyclefree. Conflict of interest, what conflict of interest?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505
    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,222

    YouGov provide a downloadable spreadsheet of the MRP 2024 results per consistency.

    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/YouGov_MRP_January_2024_results.csv

    Largest Conservative majority is 16% (37% Vs 21% Lab) in Christchurch.

    I take it Wes will be re-elected :lol:
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Some global figures here.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,253

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    edited January 15
    Nigelb said:

    Those are some spectacular conflicts, Cyclefree.
    Have they been elsewhere reported so clearly ?

    The overlaps between Post Office, CPS and Ministry of Justice are disturbing.

    No. Not the one between the Post Office and the CPS. At least I've not seen it anywhere. Steps are being taken to raise it elsewhere.

    The one relating to Tim Parker and his role in charge of HM Courts and Tribunals has been known about for a while. Though nothing was done.

    A letter to the CPS is needed, no. Perhaps even to the A-G's office, to whom the CPS reports. They even have a whistleblowing hotline - 0203 334 0320 and email - fraud_reporting@justice.gov.uk. In case anyone has a spare few minutes.

    The Business Department should be made aware of course but since the Business Secretary has been AWOL on something for which her department is responsible, preferring instead to plot and opine on the Rwanda Bill, something for which she is not responsible, that would almost certainly be a total waste of time.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,662

    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.

    Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,146
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
    As Lord Vetenari was happy to point out, if you have a problem with per capita we can always try decapita.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
    Nearly two thirds of China's economy is now domestic consumption.
    Usefully measuring what is the share of CO2 generation allocated to domestic consumption beyond that is problematic.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159

    I feel like an idiot for all the times I've recused myself because of a conflict of interest, Caesar's wife and all that.

    Perhaps I should have followed the Post Office example then again there is an absolute certainty that I would not do well in prison.

    Ditto. What we should do now is take the @Dura_Ace option: acquire a post office, trouser as many thousands as we can lay our hands on and tell the Post Office to fuck off. There is little point being honest and hard-working in this country any more. It just makes you a mug.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,089
    Off Topic

    A bit late to the party, but Lord Robert Hayward on LBC condemning the Telegraph interpretation of the YouGov poll. He stated YouGov have caveated the poll reporting because the Telegraph have, he suggested, manipulated the evidence to undermine Rishi.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,586

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Carbon emissions? Is that in the form of graphite, diamonds or Buckminsterfullerene?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    Pulpstar said:

    Who is this @Cyclefree, challenging the quango jobs for the boys & girls merry go round ?! I'll assure her Simon Jeffreys is a jolly good chap.

    If you want another potential conflict, his firm where he was a partner was PwC, who are - of course - the Post Office's auditors. Now how did they manage to miss the fact that the PO was wrongly claiming tax relief for compensation payments to subpostmasters? And may now be liable for a large tax bill and be rendered insolvent? Remember the directors have to declare that the company they are directors of is a going concern and trading while insolvent is a criminal offence.

    All matters which an Audit and Risk Committee ought to be interested in.

    But maybe at the Post Office this committee just opines on biscuits or the choice of photo for the annual calendar. Who can say.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,650

    Off Topic

    A bit late to the party, but Lord Robert Hayward on LBC condemning the Telegraph interpretation of the YouGov poll. He stated YouGov have caveated the poll reporting because the Telegraph have, he suggested, manipulated the evidence to undermine Rishi.

    Really? :)
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505
    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Those are some spectacular conflicts, Cyclefree.
    Have they been elsewhere reported so clearly ?

    The overlaps between Post Office, CPS and Ministry of Justice are disturbing.

    No. Not the one between the Post Office and the CPS. At least I've not seen it anywhere. Steps are being taken to raise it elsewhere.

    The one relating to Tim Parker and his role in charge of HM Courts and Tribunals has been known about for a while. Though nothing was done.

    A letter to the CPS is needed, no. Perhaps even to the A-G's office, to whom the CPS reports. They even have a whistleblowing hotline - 0203 334 0320 and email - fraud_reporting@justice.gov.uk. In case anyone has a spare few minutes.

    The Business Department should be made aware of course but since the Business Secretary has been AWOL on something for which her department is responsible, preferring instead to plot and opine on the Rwanda Bill, something for which she is not responsible, that would almost certainly be a total waste of time.
    There should, presumably, be a paper trail.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/declaration-and-management-of-outside-interests-in-the-civil-service/declaration-and-management-of-outside-interests-in-the-civil-service
    ...All remunerated outside employment, work and appointments should be declared, whether or not considered relevant and caught by the requirement in paragraph 4.3.4 of the Civil Service Management Code (below). Where work is not directly remunerated but may generate financial advantage for third parties, this should also be declared.

    Where these roles might affect their work either directly or indirectly, line manager approval should be sought to either continue this work or before taking up any outside work from the Civil Service, in line with the requirements in paragraph 4.3.4 of the Civil Service Management Code. Line managers need to apply the principles contained in the Business Appointment Rules in deciding whether the outside employment can continue / be taken up[footnote 5]. Specific consideration should be given to whether the role could be said to overlap with or draw on the knowledge or skills used in their civil service roles as this will likely present a conflict of interest. Individuals must tell their manager immediately of any changes in circumstances that may affect the permission they have been given. If the individual moves jobs within the civil service, they must tell their new line manager about their additional employment and seek their approval. Department’s declaration of interest forms should provide the ability to record the consideration and approval. Any changes to the outside role, if agreed, should also be regularly considered...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,912
    COME ON, THE DONALD
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    Perhaps an FOI or two are in order ?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    edited January 15

    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.

    Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
    Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany

    Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban
    Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/16/keir-starmer-represented-extremist-islamist-group/
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,089
    viewcode said:

    Off Topic

    A bit late to the party, but Lord Robert Hayward on LBC condemning the Telegraph interpretation of the YouGov poll. He stated YouGov have caveated the poll reporting because the Telegraph have, he suggested, manipulated the evidence to undermine Rishi.

    Really? :)
    Hayward said check the YouGov website for their partial rebuttal of the Telegraph's interpretation.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,148
    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,294
    isam said:

    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.

    Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
    Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany

    Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban
    Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/16/keir-starmer-represented-extremist-islamist-group/
    Ah, that must explain the government's move then: 'Islamic terrorism: Conservatives ban; Starmer's a fan.'
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    edited January 15
    Nigelb said:

    There should surely be a rule that individuals with directorships of public bodies not be allowed to hold other board positions with potentially conflicting interests ?

    The Post Office scandal has been public knowledge, one way or another, for at least a decade. How were these appointments allowed ?

    At my last firm there was an Outside Business Interests Policy. You could not be a director of a company (with certain limited exceptions - flat management companies etc) without first seeking approval. You would not get it if there was even a whiff of a potential conflict of interest.

    The CPS has a Code of Condict which I have reviewed. I can find in it no specific requirement to seek approval for outside business interests. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the CPS does not know about this.

    There are also the 7 Nolan Principles of Public Life. The second one - Integrity - says this:

    "Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work."

    You'd have thought this might cause the Mr Jeffreys of this world to think for a moment.
  • Options
    No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,804
    edited January 15
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    148grss said:

    TOPPING said:

    148grss said:

    Sandpit said:

    The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero

    I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.

    So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party

    Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.

    People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
    Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.

    “The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
    Here's the thing: it saves you money.

    I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.

    Also, free fuel for your electric car too.

    We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.

    It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
    I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
    ie we the consumers.
    No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
    The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
    Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
    I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.

    Any other irrelevant questions?
    Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
    My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.

    The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
    Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.

    The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.

    You hypocritical fucker.
    15% of people who fly frequently take 70% of all UK flights, while more than half the UK population don't fly at all in any given year. As always the issue is structural and not really about individual choices. Those frequent fliers tend to be wealthier and tend to fly for pleasure or work for multinational corporations. You're literally doing the comic meme.


    Cliches are cliches for a reason. @kini was shouting the odds about beastly Big Oil yet fucked off on holiday using flights that are killing the planet. He says that they lied to us but whether they did or not I would put it in the tobacco companies are lying to us bucket. He was aware of the Big Lie when he booked the tickets.

    So put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, don't put your money where your mouth is.

    So yes hypocrite is exactly right. Believe there is a climate crisis? Don't fly to Tenerife.

    But it's only every 12 years everyone cries. But that is exactly what you criticise when people, analogously say "but the UK is a tiny part of world emissions".
    A person flying once in a dozen years is not comparable to the argument "the UK is a tiny part of world emissions"
    It is exactly analogous. The excuse is it's only once what harm does it do in the greater scheme of things. The analogous excuse is it's only the UK which accounts for X.XX% of global emissions.
    Actually, if CO2 emissions were a "once in a while" thing, it would be fine. That they are not is the major problem. That they are not is, mostly, due to the consumption of the West. If every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in the UK you would need the resources of more than 3 Earths; if every person on the planet Earth lived like the average person in China or India that hovers around 1 Earths worth of resources. This is massively off kilter not only because the average persons consumption is much greater in the UK (and the West in general) but also because of the acceptance of lifestyles of extreme consumption beyond normal persons ken. Again, CO2 emissions in China and India, for example, are mainly for the benefit of consumption that takes place outside of their own countries - due to colonial and post colonial organisations of economies, offshoring and the ever hungry profit motive that needs to see infinite growth to be considered successful. It doesn't matter if we no longer emit the CO2 from factories within our borders if our populace is still incentivised and prioritised when it comes to consuming the goods that come from those emissions.
    You are spectacularly out of touch. Per capita carbon emissions are 60% higher in China than in the UK and you can hardly attribute the Chinese economy to colonialism when it's grown spectacularly in the last few decades.
    Emissions is not the same as consumption. Those per capita emissions are not being delivered to Chinese people, they are the Western countries offshoring manufacturing which they then import the goods of. The West demanded a market for cheap labour, and China gave that to us.
    So we can produce as much gas and oil as we like, so long as we export it?
    And it won't count against our carbon emissions?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,089
    isam said:

    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.

    Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
    Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany

    Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban
    Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/16/keir-starmer-represented-extremist-islamist-group/
    I bet if one digs down deeper, the barsteward defended Dr Crippen, the Yorkshire Ripper, Fred West and Harold Shipman.
  • Options

    Off Topic

    A bit late to the party, but Lord Robert Hayward on LBC condemning the Telegraph interpretation of the YouGov poll. He stated YouGov have caveated the poll reporting because the Telegraph have, he suggested, manipulated the evidence to undermine Rishi.

    Everyone on PB.com should be shocked rigid that unscrupulous individuals might selectively quote poll data, or rely on dubious sub-samples, simply to support their own preconceived views.

    Simply unacceptable, and not something any contributor to this site would ever engage in.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,868
    edited January 15
    malcolmg said:

    1st given mods must be disqualified.

    First like a Tory MP on election night...
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    edited January 15

    Sean_F said:

    I feel like an idiot for all the times I've recused myself because of a conflict of interest, Caesar's wife and all that.

    Perhaps I should have followed the Post Office example then again there is an absolute certainty that I would not do well in prison.

    The problem is, you're one of the people to whom the rules apply. Jeffreys is not.
    Ironically I set a lot of the rules at work and to quote Hot Fuzz, I am Judge Judy and executioner.

    Which reminds me I have to update our whistleblower policies and procedure.
    Look - this - whistleblowing - is my day job.

    Can't you bung me a juicy contract, there's a good chap.

    I think this complies with all the procurement rules, no,
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,902
    kinabalu said:

    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).

    In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you
    replied

    “Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“

    So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions


  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    Niall Ferguson, who is pretty much the only right-wing thinker in modern times I give credence to, posted a truly pessimistic twix thread in early January, noting that the U.S.-led world order was under unprecedented pressure across three axes - from Russia, from Iran-funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and potentially from China.

    Let us not forget the internal threat from Trump, whose foreign policy is supremely isolationist if not actively in support of hard right, anti-democratic regimes.

    I am not quite so pessimistic, but the Houthis seem to have just effectively closed the Arabian Sea to mercantile traffic.
  • Options
    On topic, relevant to this site, and the establishment only hearing what they want to hear,
    are there any professional gamblers on the Gambling Commission?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,253

    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
    Boring as fuck I reckon one in a hundred people read the whole thing. But you go ahead.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    Those are some spectacular conflicts, Cyclefree.
    Have they been elsewhere reported so clearly ?

    The overlaps between Post Office, CPS and Ministry of Justice are disturbing.

    No. Not the one between the Post Office and the CPS. At least I've not seen it anywhere. Steps are being taken to raise it elsewhere.

    The one relating to Tim Parker and his role in charge of HM Courts and Tribunals has been known about for a while. Though nothing was done.

    A letter to the CPS is needed, no. Perhaps even to the A-G's office, to whom the CPS reports. They even have a whistleblowing hotline - 0203 334 0320 and email - fraud_reporting@justice.gov.uk. In case anyone has a spare few minutes.

    The Business Department should be made aware of course but since the Business Secretary has been AWOL on something for which her department is responsible, preferring instead to plot and opine on the Rwanda Bill, something for which she is not responsible, that would almost certainly be a total waste of time.
    There should, presumably, be a paper trail.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/declaration-and-management-of-outside-interests-in-the-civil-service/declaration-and-management-of-outside-interests-in-the-civil-service
    ...All remunerated outside employment, work and appointments should be declared, whether or not considered relevant and caught by the requirement in paragraph 4.3.4 of the Civil Service Management Code (below). Where work is not directly remunerated but may generate financial advantage for third parties, this should also be declared.

    Where these roles might affect their work either directly or indirectly, line manager approval should be sought to either continue this work or before taking up any outside work from the Civil Service, in line with the requirements in paragraph 4.3.4 of the Civil Service Management Code. Line managers need to apply the principles contained in the Business Appointment Rules in deciding whether the outside employment can continue / be taken up[footnote 5]. Specific consideration should be given to whether the role could be said to overlap with or draw on the knowledge or skills used in their civil service roles as this will likely present a conflict of interest. Individuals must tell their manager immediately of any changes in circumstances that may affect the permission they have been given. If the individual moves jobs within the civil service, they must tell their new line manager about their additional employment and seek their approval. Department’s declaration of interest forms should provide the ability to record the consideration and approval. Any changes to the outside role, if agreed, should also be regularly considered...
    I wonder whether a part-time non-executive director is considered to be a civil servant.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    viewcode said:

    Off Topic

    A bit late to the party, but Lord Robert Hayward on LBC condemning the Telegraph interpretation of the YouGov poll. He stated YouGov have caveated the poll reporting because the Telegraph have, he suggested, manipulated the evidence to undermine Rishi.

    Really? :)
    More like Rishi has undermined Tory polling, by being a naive mistake laden PM.

    However, that Telegraph spun it to imply, “if every single Reform voter switched to Tory’s Labour won’t get a majority and Tory’s will have 255 seats, so why not give those voters exactly what they want and toughen up this weeks courts overriding bill and properly protect our borders” - that’s hardly the most underhand bit of newspaper spin we have ever seen.

    Rishi won’t be ousted this late on - everyone inside and outside the Tory party are just waiting for the election now. Those eager to take control of the party leadership off Rishi are likely just as keen on an early election as Labour PBers. In fact I read a piece of analysis, I think from Daniel Finkelstein, that waiting till the last possible moment gave John Major an even worse result than he would have got without pushing everybody’s patience, so there’s probably many more Tories wanting a General Election, than removal of Sunak.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    DavidL said:

    @Cyclefree in her excellent thread header notes in passing that the Scottish government is "peculiarly prone to this form of cronyism."

    A pinnacle in that regard was surely met in the context of the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices who are proposing that such practices should be banned in Scotland. Wings over Scotland, in an excellent piece of research, showed that all 15 of the members of this expert committee were activists opposed to such practices and a majority were employed by or members of organisations funded largely by the Scottish Government.

    They are now trying to hide who was on the committee. I find this surprising, surely the Scottish Government is well beyond embarrassment, but even they perhaps have some sense of shame:
    https://wingsoverscotland.com/down-the-memory-hole-again/

    It's well worth a read, it goes beyond funny.

    Oh I had that in mind I can assure you. I understand that one or two of the members of this so-called expert committee have committed sexual offences against children. Which is not funny at all.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    I think Rishi has a 1 in 3 chance of being ousted.
    However, there needs to be a heir apparent or king-over-the-water, and there doesn’t appear to be one.

    The nearest thing the Tories have is the shabby remains of Boris Johnson, who of course is not an MP.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
    Boring as fuck I reckon one in a hundred people read the whole thing. But you go ahead.
    Thank you for your gracious permission.

    BTW, are you aware, this is a political betting site?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,855

    Labour could do worse than appoint @cyclefree to draw up a comprehensive new code for civil service and public sector governance and appointment processes.

    But how would they replace the Tory stooges with the Labour stooges, if they had to answer to a genuine ethics committee?
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,489
    Does anyone know how many Yemenis have died during the Houthi revolt against the legitimate government of Yemen?

    (Here are some estimates:
    "Hundreds to thousands killed (humanitarian organizations), 25,000 (Houthi sources)[41]
    2,000 Sa'dah residents handicapped[42]
    250,000 Yemenis displaced[43]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency

    I have no idea how accurate those estimates are.)

    Even now, the Houthis only conrol part of Yemen. Perhaps they should seek a permanent peace by advocating a "two-state" solution.

    I await with interest, but not bated breath, for their defenders to criticize that death toll.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,314
    edited January 15
    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,167
    Dylan Difford
    @Dylan_Difford

    Going through the YouGov MRP data to add some tactical squeezing. If just one third of Lab-LD-Grn voters in England and Wales vote tactically for the strongest party, the result changes to:
    Con 69 (-100 on MRP)
    Lab 463 (+78)
    LD 70 (+22)
    Nat 28
    Grn 1
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    There should surely be a rule that individuals with directorships of public bodies not be allowed to hold other board positions with potentially conflicting interests ?

    The Post Office scandal has been public knowledge, one way or another, for at least a decade. How were these appointments allowed ?

    At my last firm there was an Outside Business Interests Policy. You could not be a director of a company (with certain limited exceptions - flat management companies etc) without first seeking approval. You would not get it if there was even a whiff of a potential conflict of interest.

    The CPS has a Code of Condict which I have reviewed. I can find in it no specific requirement to seek approval for outside business interests. It would not surprise me at all to learn that the CPS does not know about this.

    There are also the 7 Nolan Principles of Public Life. The second one - Integrity - says this:

    "Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work."

    You'd have thought this might cause the Mr Jeffreys of this world to think for a moment.
    The CPS is a part of the Civil Service, isn't it ?
    So ought to be be subject to the management code I excerpted above.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922

    Does anyone know how many Yemenis have died during the Houthi revolt against the legitimate government of Yemen?

    (Here are some estimates:
    "Hundreds to thousands killed (humanitarian organizations), 25,000 (Houthi sources)[41]
    2,000 Sa'dah residents handicapped[42]
    250,000 Yemenis displaced[43]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency

    I have no idea how accurate those estimates are.)

    Even now, the Houthis only conrol part of Yemen. Perhaps they should seek a permanent peace by advocating a "two-state" solution.

    I await with interest, but not bated breath, for their defenders to criticize that death toll.

    Nah, they - like the Bangledeshi, Indian or whatever sailors on board the ships that may die when hit by a missile - are the 'wrong' sort of victims.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,650

    Niall Ferguson, who is pretty much the only right-wing thinker in modern times I give credence to, posted a truly pessimistic twix thread in early January, noting that the U.S.-led world order was under unprecedented pressure across three axes - from Russia, from Iran-funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and potentially from China.

    Let us not forget the internal threat from Trump, whose foreign policy is supremely isolationist if not actively in support of hard right, anti-democratic regimes.

    I am not quite so pessimistic, but the Houthis seem to have just effectively closed the Arabian Sea to mercantile traffic.

    You might like Peter Zeihan, who
    • i) has been saying that US disengagement is driven by US energy independence and the end of the Cold War, and that this loss of a global hegemon and consequent deglobalisation will be accompanied by the loss of trade routes, and
    • ii) has been saying this for around ten years now.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    edited January 15

    isam said:

    Home Office to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir as terror group
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67984295

    The same Hizb ut-Tahrir that was due to be proscribed by the Blair and Cameron governments who announced it but did not follow up.

    Sounds like Starmers fault to me.
    Funny you should say that, he represented them in court when they were proscribed in Germany

    Starmer acted for extremist Islamist group in bid to overturn ban
    Labour leader applied to European Court of Human Rights to reverse Germany's prohibition of Hizb ut-Tahrir


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/16/keir-starmer-represented-extremist-islamist-group/
    I bet if one digs down deeper, the barsteward defended Dr Crippen, the Yorkshire Ripper, Fred West and Harold Shipman.
    We don’t know much about Primeminister Starmer, we will just have to wait and see. We know he is very ambitious. We will never know what he really wants to do with Downing Street and huge majority in Parliament till he’s got it - but the voters of this country have already decided to give him a blank cheque. This side of the elections Starmer “I agree with the Primeminister, hang Lord Haw Haw for treason.” On the other side of the election most likely “I don’t believe in Capital Punishment.” It’s probably true government under him will be less sleazy and self serving and more principled than it has been for a while, but we will just have to wait and see. But the countrys stopped listening to the Tories now - one by one the voters have muted the Tory Party, who knows if we shall see them unmute again in our lifetime. So blank cheque for Starmer it is.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,922
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    @Cyclefree in her excellent thread header notes in passing that the Scottish government is "peculiarly prone to this form of cronyism."

    A pinnacle in that regard was surely met in the context of the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices who are proposing that such practices should be banned in Scotland. Wings over Scotland, in an excellent piece of research, showed that all 15 of the members of this expert committee were activists opposed to such practices and a majority were employed by or members of organisations funded largely by the Scottish Government.

    They are now trying to hide who was on the committee. I find this surprising, surely the Scottish Government is well beyond embarrassment, but even they perhaps have some sense of shame:
    https://wingsoverscotland.com/down-the-memory-hole-again/

    It's well worth a read, it goes beyond funny.

    Oh I had that in mind I can assure you. I understand that one or two of the members of this so-called expert committee have committed sexual offences against children. Which is not funny at all.
    No, it really would not be funny. It's also quite a serious claim, and I hope you'd be able to back it up.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,868
    edited January 15

    I think Rishi has a 1 in 3 chance of being ousted.
    However, there needs to be a heir apparent or king-over-the-water, and there doesn’t appear to be one.

    The nearest thing the Tories have is the shabby remains of Boris Johnson, who of course is not an MP.

    I am not sure that is true.

    Sticking with Richi guarantees eviction. Why not roll the dice?

    If they had known that ousting BoZo would lead to Truss, perhaps some would have stayed their hand, and yet, he still needed to go...
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,845
    edited January 15
    viewcode said:

    Niall Ferguson, who is pretty much the only right-wing thinker in modern times I give credence to, posted a truly pessimistic twix thread in early January, noting that the U.S.-led world order was under unprecedented pressure across three axes - from Russia, from Iran-funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and potentially from China.

    Let us not forget the internal threat from Trump, whose foreign policy is supremely isolationist if not actively in support of hard right, anti-democratic regimes.

    I am not quite so pessimistic, but the Houthis seem to have just effectively closed the Arabian Sea to mercantile traffic.

    You might like Peter Zeihan, who
    • i) has been saying that US disengagement is driven by US energy independence and the end of the Cold War, and that this loss of a global hegemon and consequent deglobalisation will be accompanied by the loss of trade routes, and
    • ii) has been saying this for around ten years now.
    I don’t much like Peter Zeihan, who I think is facile.

    To give one example, he insisted - and I think still insists - that the UK will inevitably come begging for an agriculture deal with the US because it can’t feed itself securely now that it’s left the single market.

    However, clearly the US’s *relative* decline against the rest of the world, and its energy independence, are important factors. But one also wants to add social media, globalisation-driven wage stagnation, and hyper-financialisation.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411
    kinabalu said:

    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).

    This is why I don't accept bets here.
    I know Betfair can be a pain on occasion, but the rules are usually quite clear.
    Here you're taking pseudonymous posters on trust, and assuming that you're of the same mind on what you've agreed.

    Not for me.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,159
    edited January 15

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    @Cyclefree in her excellent thread header notes in passing that the Scottish government is "peculiarly prone to this form of cronyism."

    A pinnacle in that regard was surely met in the context of the Expert Advisory Group on Ending Conversion Practices who are proposing that such practices should be banned in Scotland. Wings over Scotland, in an excellent piece of research, showed that all 15 of the members of this expert committee were activists opposed to such practices and a majority were employed by or members of organisations funded largely by the Scottish Government.

    They are now trying to hide who was on the committee. I find this surprising, surely the Scottish Government is well beyond embarrassment, but even they perhaps have some sense of shame:
    https://wingsoverscotland.com/down-the-memory-hole-again/

    It's well worth a read, it goes beyond funny.

    Oh I had that in mind I can assure you. I understand that one or two of the members of this so-called expert committee have committed sexual offences against children. Which is not funny at all.
    No, it really would not be funny. It's also quite a serious claim, and I hope you'd be able to back it up.
    I agree. I have been told it by a third party. But I have not seen the evidence so I will not say anything further until then.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,253

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
    Boring as fuck I reckon one in a hundred people read the whole thing. But you go ahead.
    Thank you for your gracious permission.

    BTW, are you aware, this is a political betting site?
    1. Read the article (which seems to be paywalled anyway so are you violating some kind of copywright)
    2. Come to some mind-bendingly insightful conclusion about the issue.
    3. Post that conclusion so we can all ignore what you say as usual benefit from your analysis.

  • Options

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Seems a touch of double jeopardy to Everton's charges, they're charged with breaking the rules for a period of time they've already been sanctioned for breaking the rules in?

    Unless these were different breaches, it sounds odd.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,148
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).

    This is why I don't accept bets here.
    I know Betfair can be a pain on occasion, but the rules are usually quite clear.
    Here you're taking pseudonymous posters on trust, and assuming that you're of the same mind on what you've agreed.

    Not for me.
    Well if I get dk'd on this one it'll be the last time for me! But it's potentially a nice addition so it would be a shame.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,042

    viewcode said:

    Niall Ferguson, who is pretty much the only right-wing thinker in modern times I give credence to, posted a truly pessimistic twix thread in early January, noting that the U.S.-led world order was under unprecedented pressure across three axes - from Russia, from Iran-funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and potentially from China.

    Let us not forget the internal threat from Trump, whose foreign policy is supremely isolationist if not actively in support of hard right, anti-democratic regimes.

    I am not quite so pessimistic, but the Houthis seem to have just effectively closed the Arabian Sea to mercantile traffic.

    You might like Peter Zeihan, who
    • i) has been saying that US disengagement is driven by US energy independence and the end of the Cold War, and that this loss of a global hegemon and consequent deglobalisation will be accompanied by the loss of trade routes, and
    • ii) has been saying this for around ten years now.
    I don’t much like Peter Zeihan, who I think is facile.

    To give one example, he insisted - and I think still insists - that the UK will inevitably come begging for an agriculture deal with the US because it can’t feed itself securely now that it’s left the single market.
    That's a good example of people who are ostensibly well-informed who completely misunderstand what Brexit meant in practice. Post-Brexit trade between the UK and EU is still more open than within the USMCA countries.
  • Options
    maxhmaxh Posts: 825
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
    Boring as fuck I reckon one in a hundred people read the whole thing. But you go ahead.
    Thank you for your gracious permission.

    BTW, are you aware, this is a political betting site?
    1. Read the article (which seems to be paywalled anyway so are you violating some kind of copywright)
    2. Come to some mind-bendingly insightful conclusion about the issue.
    3. Post that conclusion so we can all ignore what you say as usual benefit from your analysis.

    You’re feeling a bit punchy this afternoon aren’t you @topping.

    Though it’s all forgiven as by replying to your post I’ve seen how to do a strike through, which brings me great pleasure.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,187
    edited January 15

    Dylan Difford
    @Dylan_Difford

    Going through the YouGov MRP data to add some tactical squeezing. If just one third of Lab-LD-Grn voters in England and Wales vote tactically for the strongest party, the result changes to:
    Con 69 (-100 on MRP)
    Lab 463 (+78)
    LD 70 (+22)
    Nat 28
    Grn 1

    I don't know how else to explain this to PB Tories -> the later you leave the election, the higher the chance that this kind of ELE happens.

    Can you imagine the fun if the summer is:
    No election in May
    Tory councillors get ploughed
    Leadership challenge ousts Sunak
    Tories split into two sections, with the dominant right wing families infighting before uniting around some wazzock
    New PM Wazzock asks for time to implement policies of this "new government"

    69 will feel ambitious. EDIT - I am married. It already does.
  • Options

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Seems a touch of double jeopardy to Everton's charges, they're charged with breaking the rules for a period of time they've already been sanctioned for breaking the rules in?

    Unless these were different breaches, it sounds odd.
    Breaches across two different seasons.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,411

    Does anyone know how many Yemenis have died during the Houthi revolt against the legitimate government of Yemen?

    (Here are some estimates:
    "Hundreds to thousands killed (humanitarian organizations), 25,000 (Houthi sources)[41]
    2,000 Sa'dah residents handicapped[42]
    250,000 Yemenis displaced[43]"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency

    I have no idea how accurate those estimates are.)

    Even now, the Houthis only conrol part of Yemen. Perhaps they should seek a permanent peace by advocating a "two-state" solution.

    I await with interest, but not bated breath, for their defenders to criticize that death toll.

    It's not entirely unlikely that a two state solution might save a lot of future lives.

    The Saudis have been bombing them with western supplied bombs for seven years, to little effect other than a lot of casualties. They're now talking to them.

    Unless you're suggesting we do an Iraq reprise ?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,167
    New Hampshire, which votes on Jan. 23, may not offer much respite. A storm on Tuesday could bring three inches of snow, and temperatures later in the week will be from 5 to 15 degrees below historic averages, [Accuweather said]

    NY Times blog
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,662
    edited January 15

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Seems a touch of double jeopardy to Everton's charges, they're charged with breaking the rules for a period of time they've already been sanctioned for breaking the rules in?

    Unless these were different breaches, it sounds odd.
    Breaches across two different seasons.
    Two different 3 year rolling periods (but with 2 years overlap). Feels wrong, unless the gap got bigger in the "new" year compared to the "lost" year, even then the punishment should be about a third of the full punishment.
  • Options

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Canadians and British Northerners laugh at wimp ass Americans.

    Just put on your big coat and you’ll be fine.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Both of these are egregious charges.

    If either were in the Champions League places, they would have no risk of being booted out.
  • Options

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Seems a touch of double jeopardy to Everton's charges, they're charged with breaking the rules for a period of time they've already been sanctioned for breaking the rules in?

    Unless these were different breaches, it sounds odd.
    Breaches across two different seasons.
    Hmm, the BBC had a message saying that it was for the same season, but that message has subsequently been deleted, so it looks like they made a mistake and that's what I was going off.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,662

    New Hampshire, which votes on Jan. 23, may not offer much respite. A storm on Tuesday could bring three inches of snow, and temperatures later in the week will be from 5 to 15 degrees below historic averages, [Accuweather said]

    NY Times blog

    Winter is coming.
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 485

    Dylan Difford
    @Dylan_Difford

    Going through the YouGov MRP data to add some tactical squeezing. If just one third of Lab-LD-Grn voters in England and Wales vote tactically for the strongest party, the result changes to:
    Con 69 (-100 on MRP)
    Lab 463 (+78)
    LD 70 (+22)
    Nat 28
    Grn 1

    Indeed. I was just looking through it and there are quite a lot of previously safe Tory seats where the predicted vote share is something like C 32 LD 27 Lab 25 (to pick Mid Sussex as an example) or the other way round C32 Lab 27 LD 25 (Hitchin). If it became clear in the campaign which party was best placed to beat the Tories in some of those seats they really will be in trouble.

    Below 30%, unless your vote is well concentrated, FTFP is not your friend. A reminder that 26% of the vote got the Lib/SDP Alliance just 23 seats in 1983.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Canadians and British Northerners laugh at wimp ass Americans.

    Just put on your big coat and you’ll be fine.
    Geordies wouldn't even be thinking of a vest....
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,253
    maxh said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ON TOPIC? And another "here we go again" story . . .

    NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
    In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.

    The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.

    The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.

    “Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .

    Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.

    In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .

    The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.

    The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.

    With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .

    SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.

    Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.

    Can you just give us the link and then two lines of your summary. I am sure I'm using up more fossil fuels than I need by scrolling past your interminable posts.
    No - but thanks for reposting!
    Boring as fuck I reckon one in a hundred people read the whole thing. But you go ahead.
    Thank you for your gracious permission.

    BTW, are you aware, this is a political betting site?
    1. Read the article (which seems to be paywalled anyway so are you violating some kind of copywright)
    2. Come to some mind-bendingly insightful conclusion about the issue.
    3. Post that conclusion so we can all ignore what you say as usual benefit from your analysis.

    You’re feeling a bit punchy this afternoon aren’t you @topping.

    Though it’s all forgiven as by replying to your post I’ve seen how to do a strike through, which brings me great pleasure.
    Fuck off You're welcome.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,244

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Do caucuses require in person attendance from the candidates? And in an unrelated musing, what happens to soiled incontinence underwear at -35°?

  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,089

    Everton are going to end up on minus points this season.

    Nottingham Forest and Everton could face points deduction after Premier League charges

    Clubs charged with breach of profit and sustainability rules

    Everton already docked 10 points but this is second charge

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/15/premier-league-charge-nottingham-forest-everton

    Seems a touch of double jeopardy to Everton's charges, they're charged with breaking the rules for a period of time they've already been sanctioned for breaking the rules in?

    Unless these were different breaches, it sounds odd.
    Breaches across two different seasons.
    It's an absolute crock if one considers what Citeh and Chelsea (amongst others) have been up to for a quarter of a century. Third division also rans to first tier champions. A load of b*******!
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,253
    edited January 15
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).

    This is why I don't accept bets here.
    I know Betfair can be a pain on occasion, but the rules are usually quite clear.
    Here you're taking pseudonymous posters on trust, and assuming that you're of the same mind on what you've agreed.

    Not for me.
    That's a pretty shitty view of the people you spend a good amount of your day with.

    I trust everyone here. I have had (and lost) a bet with @isam and all was paid and I had no doubt he would have paid had I won.

    I've never bet with @kinabalu but have no doubt if we were to bet he would pay me (it goes without saying that I would win whatever bet we struck).
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505

    New Hampshire, which votes on Jan. 23, may not offer much respite. A storm on Tuesday could bring three inches of snow, and temperatures later in the week will be from 5 to 15 degrees below historic averages, [Accuweather said]

    NY Times blog

    According to Topping, you are on thin ice!

    One BIG difference between New Hampshire primary and Iowa Republican precinct caucuses, is absentee voting.

    NH Secretary of State webpage (note last sentence below):

    New Hampshire voters may vote by absentee ballot for specific reasons.
    The reasons include; being absent from the voter’s city or town, a religious observance, disability or illness, and employment commitments (including caregiving) during the entire time the polls are open. Absentee ballots may also be available when a weather emergency impacts an election.

    https://www.sos.nh.gov/elections/absentee-ballots
  • Options
    The BBC have now reposted the bit I read that they'd posted then deleted, but its now labelled as an Everton statement (which it wasn't before) so take with a pinch of salt.

    This relates to a period which covers seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. It therefore includes financial periods (2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22) for which the Club has already received a 10-point sanction.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505
    moonshine said:

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Do caucuses require in person attendance from the candidates? And in an unrelated musing, what happens to soiled incontinence underwear at -35°?

    Personal attendence from candidate at Iowa Republican precinct caucuses? Er, no.

    Note that Iowa has 99. With each having at least one caucus meeting location (generally with more than one precinct caucusing there) counties with larger populations have multiple locations, so hundreds across the state. For process that starts (officially) everywhere at 7pm and last say 2-3 hours.

    https://www.iowagop.org/2024_caucus_locations

    As to your second question, if your (or somebody else's) ass temperature is -35 degrees (Celsius or Fahrenheit) any embarrassment suffered with medical personal see your less-than-pristine skivvies, is the LEAST of your problems.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    moonshine said:

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Do caucuses require in person attendance from the candidates? And in an unrelated musing, what happens to soiled incontinence underwear at -35°?

    In person in Iowa, I believe.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,662
    edited January 15

    The BBC have now reposted the bit I read that they'd posted then deleted, but its now labelled as an Everton statement (which it wasn't before) so take with a pinch of salt.

    This relates to a period which covers seasons 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23. It therefore includes financial periods (2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22) for which the Club has already received a 10-point sanction.

    Either way of looking at it is correct, comes down to semantics.

    To pass the current years test, it looks at the last 3 sets of accounts (date adjusted rather than FY year end).

    So it is a "new" test each season, but 2/3 of the inputs are the same as the previous season.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,263
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Who is this @Cyclefree, challenging the quango jobs for the boys & girls merry go round ?! I'll assure her Simon Jeffreys is a jolly good chap.

    If you want another potential conflict, his firm where he was a partner was PwC, who are - of course - the Post Office's auditors. Now how did they manage to miss the fact that the PO was wrongly claiming tax relief for compensation payments to subpostmasters? And may now be liable for a large tax bill and be rendered insolvent? Remember the directors have to declare that the company they are directors of is a going concern and trading while insolvent is a criminal offence.

    All matters which an Audit and Risk Committee ought to be interested in.

    But maybe at the Post Office this committee just opines on biscuits or the choice of photo for the annual calendar. Who can say.
    As ever, bang on the money.

    I’d like to put myself forward to run the Risk of Risk On The Risk Committee for the CPS & the Post Office.

    I’m in a reasonable mood. So I’ll do it for £100K for 1 day a month, and GCMG. That I take on no Risk for running the Risk of Risk is a given.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,505

    Iowa weather today:

    WIND CHILL WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL NOON CST TUESDAY

    * WHAT...Dangerously cold wind chills. Wind chills as low as 35
    below zero.

    * WHERE...All of central Iowa.

    * WHEN...Until noon CST Tuesday.

    * IMPACTS...The dangerously cold wind chills could cause
    frostbite on exposed skin in as little as 10 minutes.

    Canadians and British Northerners laugh at wimp ass Americans.

    Just put on your big coat and you’ll be fine.
    And in USA, Northerners laugh at wimp Southerners.

    In the publication formerly nicknamed "the Gray Lady" by old-school media-mavens, story today about difference between "low temperature emergency" in Duluth, Minnesota and Dallas, Texas.

    Approximately 30-40 degrees Fahrenheit or thereabouts.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,148
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    @isam @rcs1000

    Guys, can we resolve this betting issue please?

    Isam laid me £100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. No dispute on this.

    The proposal is that this be netted against something Isam has going with RCS such that I will collect the £300 from RCS if the bet wins (which looks likely but you never know).

    In August last year I suggested we either void it or you sort something out with Robert, and you
    replied

    “Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.“

    So why would you think, five months later, that I’d think we were still on?? You agreed with both of my suggestions
    That is not accurate.

    Here's you on a September thread posting about how you've done a 'bad' 3/1 lay of SKS PM post-GE. Why would you do that if you'd got yourself out of it?

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4546501#Comment_4546501

    The fact is nobody replied to me in August. You didn't. RCS didn't. It was left hanging. There was no agreement to do anything. Hence why I'd like it resolved now. My preference in order is as follows:

    1. Our bet stands as we struck it. That's the norm after all.
    2. RCS takes the bet from you. But he needs to confirm that.
    3. We forget it and I let you off.

    If it's (3) I'd be agreeing to cancel a bet that looks almost certain to be a £300 winner. There needs to be a good reason for that.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,833
    edited January 15
    Afternoon all :)

    Let's hope the heat of PB keeps us all warm on what's going to be a jolly cold night though not as severe as Iowa where it's going to be -35 (Centigrade or Fahrenheit? First one, then the other would be my riposte).

    The actual VI of the YouGov/MRP is Labour 39.5%, Conservative 26%, Liberal Democrat 12%, Reform 9% and Green 7%. A 12% Conservative lead in December 2019 is a 13.5% Labour lead in January 2024 so that's a 12.75% swing with the Conservative to Liberal Democrat swing (a 33-point gap cut to a 13.5-point gap) is just shy of 10%.

    Most constituencies have their quirks and neither applying UNS nor factoring in tactical voting is likely to tell the complete story. The Clacton poll (without Farage) had a huge swing from Conservative to Labour and there will be considerable variations across England (let alone Wales and Scotland).

    There will be some areas where the swing to Labour is much lower than the "national average" and others where it is much higher. From what little evidence we have, the larger the Conservative majority the larger the swing - this may help the Conservatives retain more seats even on a lower percentage as their vote becomes more efficient yet there are clear islands of Conservative strength - Dudley, Walsall, Dartford to name but three.

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48371-yougov-mrp-shows-labour-would-win-1997-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today

    This article also contradicts some of the assumptions built into the Telegraph reporting especially concerning the Reform vote.
This discussion has been closed.