Skip to content

Like Baldrick, Andy Burnham has a cunning new plan – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • I have crossed into the EU, for Carlingford oysters, by Calingford lough, in Carlingford
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,542
    edited April 19
    When do we get betting markets for County Councils?

    From the Vicar of Bray chronicles, Worcestershire will be ... interesting, Currently Reform 25 seats, Tories 12 seats, Green 8, LD 7, Lab 2, Ind 3.

    The Reform UK Group have just defenestrated their leader Jo Monk, who will stay as Council Leader up until the Election due to meeting timings etc. She has been defeated by Cllr Alan Amos (who we have discussed). Up until last year Alan Amos was a Tory, having been Labour before that for 12-13 years, an Independent, and also a Conservative MP years and years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that Amos is also a Councillor on Worcester City Council; it's quite a rabbit hole.

    Amos won the vote by 15-10, so the group is split: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w4yqxqzezo

    If I have this right, Jo Monk was still in post as Council Leader because last month she faced down a no confidence vote from the Greens over a 9% council Tax rise with Conservative support.

    Unless the numbers shift in a big way, Cllr Amos will be needing support from the Cons to shore up his position. I wonder if he will get it?

    I know Cllr Amos of old from active travel policy; imo he's a kind of lobotomised brontosaurus.

    I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose,
    drinking fresh mango juice ...


    * Fun article mentioning Alan Amos written just before he standing in Hitchin and Harpenden for Labour in 2001.
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/feb/04/features11.g27
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    MattW said:

    When do we get betting markets for County Councils?

    From the Vicar of Bray chronicles, Worcestershire will be ... interesting, Currently Reform 25 seats, Tories 12 seats, Green 8, LD 7, Lab 2, Ind 3.

    The Reform UK Group have just defenestrated their leader Jo Monk, who will stay as Council Leader up until the Election due to meeting timings etc. She has been defeated by Cllr Alan Amos (who we have discussed). Up until last year Alan Amos was a Tory, having been Labour before that for 12-13 years, an Independent, and also a Conservative MP years and years ago. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that Amos is also a Councillor on Worcester City Council; it's quite a rabbit hole.

    Amos won the vote by 15-10, so the group is split: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w4yqxqzezo

    If I have this right, Jo Monk was still in post as Council Leader because last month she faced down a no confidence vote from the Greens over a 9% council Tax rise with Conservative support.

    Unless the numbers shift in a big way, Cllr Amos will be needing support from the Cons to shore up his position. I wonder if he will get it?

    I know Cllr Amos of old from active travel policy; imo he's a kind of lobotomised brontosaurus.

    I want to lie, shipwrecked and comatose,
    drinking fresh mango juice ...


    * Fun article mentioning Alan Amos written just before he standing in Hitchin and Harpenden for Labour in 2001.
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/feb/04/features11.g27

    "I have changed back again, genuinely" ... to being a Neanderthal.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    https://x.com/i/status/2045778812848246853

    Text for those not wanting to click link

    Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:

    * Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed

    * The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting

    * No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key

    * Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless

    *********

    Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed?
    If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X.
    But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed.
    The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette

    Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy.
    I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background.
    But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory?
    What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
    The point of procedures is:

    To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed.
    To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
    The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
    More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.

    In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
    And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
    Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.

    The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…

    That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.

    So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.

    So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.

    So instead, he was cleared.
    The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.

    'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'

    If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
    To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
    Even Trump has. Oh, maybe wait.....
    Trump has probably made an order of magnitude more profit since his second inauguration than in the whole of the rest of his life.
    Supposedly he's tripled his wealth and he wasn't that poor to begin with.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 136,923
    edited April 19
    Tommy Robinson has also endorsed Rupert Lowe and Restore Britain, though he did back Goodwin and ReformUK in the Gorton and Denton by election but is not keen on Farage

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckumTtD9Y1k
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    https://x.com/i/status/2045778812848246853

    Text for those not wanting to click link

    Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:

    * Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed

    * The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting

    * No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key

    * Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless

    *********

    Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed?
    If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X.
    But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed.
    The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette

    Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy.
    I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background.
    But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory?
    What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
    The point of procedures is:

    To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed.
    To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
    The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
    More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.

    In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
    And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
    Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.

    The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…

    That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.

    So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.

    So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.

    So instead, he was cleared.
    The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.

    'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'

    If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
    To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
    Even Trump has. Oh, maybe wait.....
    Trump has probably made an order of magnitude more profit since his second inauguration than in the whole of the rest of his life.
    Supposedly he's tripled his wealth and he wasn't that poor to begin with.
    His property empire was big but incredibly convoluted and prone to him inflating it's value depending on who he was talking too (plus a big value on his personal brand). Since becoming President the first time and particularly the second he's managed to cash in more than he's ever managed before, in seemingly simpler ways.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2045825891817676868

    Why does Sir Keir Starmer want to be Prime Minister? It’s hard to know. But what’s certain is that Britain is paying the price of having a PM with no interest in doing the job.

    Perhaps you think ‘all politicians are liars’. Yet the disgraceful appointment of Peter Mandelson points not just to dishonesty, but to a prime minister too idle to ask basic questions and too weak to face the answers.

    Even by his own defence (fanciful as it is), Starmer has shown himself lacking in any grip, to be lazy in his thinking and, as it turns out, too idle to ask the most basic questions of his staff.

    In fact, the real scandal is not the appointment of Mandelson - serious though that is - but the woeful direction of our country under Starmer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2045825891817676868

    Why does Sir Keir Starmer want to be Prime Minister? It’s hard to know. But what’s certain is that Britain is paying the price of having a PM with no interest in doing the job.

    Perhaps you think ‘all politicians are liars’. Yet the disgraceful appointment of Peter Mandelson points not just to dishonesty, but to a prime minister too idle to ask basic questions and too weak to face the answers.

    Even by his own defence (fanciful as it is), Starmer has shown himself lacking in any grip, to be lazy in his thinking and, as it turns out, too idle to ask the most basic questions of his staff.

    In fact, the real scandal is not the appointment of Mandelson - serious though that is - but the woeful direction of our country under Starmer.

    Put the phone down....repeat put the phone down...
  • https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2045825891817676868

    Why does Sir Keir Starmer want to be Prime Minister? It’s hard to know. But what’s certain is that Britain is paying the price of having a PM with no interest in doing the job.

    Perhaps you think ‘all politicians are liars’. Yet the disgraceful appointment of Peter Mandelson points not just to dishonesty, but to a prime minister too idle to ask basic questions and too weak to face the answers.

    Even by his own defence (fanciful as it is), Starmer has shown himself lacking in any grip, to be lazy in his thinking and, as it turns out, too idle to ask the most basic questions of his staff.

    In fact, the real scandal is not the appointment of Mandelson - serious though that is - but the woeful direction of our country under Starmer.

    So she’s already back-pedalling on what she said yesterday?

    Why does Badenoch want to be PM? She was literally in the government very recently, why did she not seem to do much?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,239
    Leon said:

    I have crossed into the EU, for Carlingford oysters, by Calingford lough, in Carlingford

    Is this a 32-county visit?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,239
    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    The family I've married into have a minor tradition of Sunday evening ice cream. As traditions go it's not exactly a coronation service, but it does at least contribute a bit of structure to the week.

    Saturday morning, go to the market (where I met my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and gardening enthusiast nephew). Sunday evening, ice cream.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    The family I've married into have a minor tradition of Sunday evening ice cream. As traditions go it's not exactly a coronation service, but it does at least contribute a bit of structure to the week.

    Saturday morning, go to the market (where I met my mother-in-law, sister-in-law and gardening enthusiast nephew). Sunday evening, ice cream.
    A variety of flavours ?
  • John Rentoul has posted about where it all went wrong for Starmer: welfare U-turn.

    I said this at the time. By U-turning he gave the MPs the total ability to argue against whatever they wanted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    John Rentoul has posted about where it all went wrong for Starmer: welfare U-turn.

    I said this at the time. By U-turning he gave the MPs the total ability to argue against whatever they wanted.

    It was awfully early to be forced into a U-turn by your own backbenchers.

    U-turns can be good, they can be necessary, but too early or too often and it seems you lose control.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 33,542
    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    https://x.com/i/status/2045778812848246853

    Text for those not wanting to click link

    Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:

    * Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed

    * The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting

    * No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key

    * Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless

    *********

    Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed?
    If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X.
    But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed.
    The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette

    Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy.
    I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background.
    But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory?
    What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
    The point of procedures is:

    To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed.
    To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
    The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
    More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.

    In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
    And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
    Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.

    The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…

    That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.

    So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.

    So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.

    So instead, he was cleared.
    The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.

    'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'

    If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
    To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
    Even Trump has. Oh, maybe wait.....
    Trump has probably made an order of magnitude more profit since his second inauguration than in the whole of the rest of his life.
    Supposedly he's tripled his wealth and he wasn't that poor to begin with.
    His property empire was big but incredibly convoluted and prone to him inflating it's value depending on who he was talking too (plus a big value on his personal brand). Since becoming President the first time and particularly the second he's managed to cash in more than he's ever managed before, in seemingly simpler ways.
    I don't think that is fair.

    Mr Trump deflated its value whenever he was due to pay proerty taxes.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195

    John Rentoul has posted about where it all went wrong for Starmer: welfare U-turn.

    I said this at the time. By U-turning he gave the MPs the total ability to argue against whatever they wanted.

    He’s right. Starmer should have fronted it out.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,451
    Cicero said:

    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    Has Burnham given any indication as to what he would do differently as PM or all his energies concentrated on the process of becoming PM ?

    Who was the last PM to have a meaningful idea of what they would do in office before they got to it? Cameron and Blair were essentially soundbites. Johnson was a chameleon. Sunak was a technocrat. Starmer likewise. Callaghan and Major too. Truss I will give you but her ideas turned out to be insane and she only lasted six weeks. Thatcher claimed to have a plan in her memoirs but she gave little indication of it before coming in and there's always a suspicion that she made it up as she went along. Heath had a plan but never tried to implement it.

    Do we have to go back to Wilson before Truss? And before him Attlee?
    That speaks to something more fundamental than simply the character (or lack of it) of a PrimeMInister.

    The more worrying answer is simply there was no plan because there is no plan. I called it "the death of ideology" a while back - Thatcher had a plan of sorts though it was really the 1983 victory which allowed her to pursue it. Attlee had circumstances quite unlike anything before or since.

    Before that, perhaps Asquith in 1906 - the three radical reforming Governments of the 20th century.

    Now, there is no radical, reforming ideology out there - the centre left has had no economic policy since 2008, the centre right knows austerity (whatever that means) doesn't work and has no ideas. The populists have filled the gap but their plans are fiscally incoherent.

    To her credit, Badenoch has started to see a way forward but unfortunately, in order to win power, she has to get votes and that means uncosted promises so she too will end up having questions to answer about the financial viability of her party's proposals.

    So, successive Prime Ministers are in office but not in power to use a hackneyed old expression. There's a worrying retreat into ethno-nationalism on all sides -the old sense of "looking after our own" (however that is defined). The adversarial nature of modern politics prevents the kind of cross-cutting concensus which might drive forward meaningful reform.

    No one wants to touch pensioner benefits because pensioners vote and in large numbers whereas, it seems, younger people don't. The other side of that is the aspirational minority are also ignored - those who simply want better lives for themselves and their families (yes, they are praised and called "hard working" but that's often not through choice).

    The "solutions" peddled round on sites like this become increasingly nonsensical - some have argued cutting benefits by 50%. No Government is going to do that, ever.
    Asquith was not leader in 1906, but yes, I agree with your general point.

    With Thatcher, (also a reply to @DavidL ) I think her ideas were mostly slogans. She talked, for example, about curbing the unions but at first had little idea of how to go about it. Indeed, if anything they did it to themselves with the disastrous strike at British Steel. She also talked about stemming inflation but her policies on how to do it were fairly unclear. It is true she did eventually come up with some ideas to turn them into some form of reality but they often seemed to be rather a long way from what she talked about.
    Indeed, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman led the Liberals to the great landslide of 1906. He was also the most radical figure in the party- opposed to the Boer war and determined to launch real social and economic change. Although he died only a couple of years after coming to office and has often been called "the unknown Prime Minister", there is certainly a case for him being seen as the most consequential figure in the politics of his time. Lloyd George and Churchill were both devotees of this remarkable man.
    Bonar Law not Campbell Bannerman was the “unknown prime minister”

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prime-Minister-Times-Andrew-Bonar/dp/0571272665
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,418
    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    Your teeth will thank you at least.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,502

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    Is he offering to kill himself? I think that's an action that would command universal approval.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,195
    Quality news from the BBC here

    The license fee is clearly worth every penny. Reith would be proud

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqwvp5g7ldo
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,366
    edited April 19
    Dopermean said:

    https://x.com/i/status/2045778812848246853

    Text for those not wanting to click link

    Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:

    * Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed

    * The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting

    * No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key

    * Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless

    *********

    Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed?
    If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X.
    But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed.
    The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette

    Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy.
    I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background.
    But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory?
    What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
    "Has he passed the vetting?"
    "Yes"
    Not "Yes, but we ignored the vetting"

    I think Starmer's problems start with McSweeney, that led to
    The "Ming vase" strategy which has resulted in no underlying purpose to Starmer's premiership, just getting elected and reacting to the press
    Control of PPCs leading to selection of more ambitious, less ideological, candidates rather than those with a reason to be an MP
    The "Blue Labour" BS
    Ousting of Sue Gray
    Appointment of Mandelson as ambassador

    McSweeney had a very long association with Mandelson, so making McSweeney his Chief of Staff seems to have resulted in Mandelson having unseen influence in Starmer's office and I'm sure Mandelson would have had Starmer's advisors lobbying for Mandelson to be US ambassador.

    Maguire and Pogrund "McSweeney and his acolytes saw themselves as insurgents within the Labour Party. As long as Starmer’s private office was functional, they could control the party’s politics themselves — without interference from small-minded Westminster villagers. They knew that Starmer’s real life — his true self — was not the work they shared with him. Their political project was predicated on this unpolitical leader doing as he was told."
    I think that is right – that Mandelson came via McSweeney not Starmer. (AC on TRiP has also pointed out that Mandelson and Starmer were never peas in the New Labour pod, which I guess makes it ironic that Mandygate might be the end for the Prime Minister.)

    As for the rest of it, there is a narrow path to salvation. From Starmer's point of view, Mandelson was vetted and cleared by the FO. From Olly Robbins' point of view, by the time UKSV red-flagged Mandelson, it was too late because he was already in Washington, and more importantly there was no new information there because Mandelson's links to China were already known when he was appointed, so there was no need to trouble the Prime Minister or withhold or revoke clearance.

    Remember, the truly damning charges that Mandelson was leaking government secrets and even lobbying against the government came later from the Epstein files. UKSV did not find this out.

    That is the case for the defence.

    And I can't see that Starmer has lied to the House, regardless (or because) of his legalistic weasel words and later refusal to answer any questions at all.

    So prosecuting counsel Kemi needs to play dirty and prejudice the jury by emphasising Mandelson's links to the p-word Epstein in order to enrage the public, and Mandelson's passing secrets in order to anger MPs. She needs to play on Mandelson being a known wrong'un and friend of George Osborne even before vetting, and therefore known by Starmer when he appointed him. She needs to give the Prime Minister a metaphorical glass of whisky and pearl-handled revolver, rather than get trapped in the weeds of what on earth is meant by following due process. Leave that for others.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,366
    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    Double bubble for Sunday working and a call-out fee on top! You're minted.
  • Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,661
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    FF43 said:

    https://x.com/i/status/2045778812848246853

    Text for those not wanting to click link

    Here's the official government position on the Mandelson vetting scandal this morning, according to Liz Kendall:

    * Olly Robbins was 'wrong' not to tell the PM that Mandelson had failed security vetting, he was 'wrong' again not to do so when the PM repeatedly claimed in public - incorrectly - that due process had been followed

    * The PM would not have given Mandelson clearance if he knew that he had failed UK Security Vetting

    * No 10 asked 'repeated questions' about Mandelson's vetting and was told 'due process' had been followed. These questions, and the responses, are now key

    * Starmer allies are warning allies that changing leaders now - at a time of global and economic instability - would be reckless

    *********

    Does not hold up. If he would have not given clearance why did he not ask if UK Security Vetting had failed or passed?
    If X then I cannot grant Y, you have to know X.
    But, of course, all he was interested in was 'due process' having been followed.
    The eggs had been broken, therefore there must be an omelette

    Good Morning one and all! And a fine and bright one it is here, if a little breezy.
    I've posted before, and hold to the view, that appointing Mandelson to deal with a slippery (at best) customer like Trump could have turned out to be a good idea. However, clearly Mandelson was even dodgier than Starmer thought (?knew) he was. After all, he had a significantly suspicion-arousing background.
    But I really, really do not understand why, if someone fails a vetting procedure, the person who is likely to need the information isn't told. And if the person appointing isn't told, why on earth was the question not asked: if X has gone through the vetting process, was everything satisfactory?
    What, otherwise, is the point of the 'vetting procedure'; if the result of such procedure is that the subject is found to be totally unsuitable, surely then the candidate should be ruled out?
    The point of procedures is:

    To allow the important people to say that procedures have been followed.
    To enable the people carrying out the procedures to get paid
    The whole Mandelson disaster is a clear advertisement why it's important to follow procedure to get OK outcomes most of the time. People who think procedure can only be performative have no idea, not just of what works but also of the modern workplace.
    More so that it's important to have clearly comprehensible, open procedures which actually contribute to doing what they're supposed to.

    In this case, ministers - and pretty well everyone else including opposition, journalists and all of us - seem to have been unaware of the apparently longstanding FCO powers to override vetting conclusions without telling anyone they have done so.
    And, as much if not more to the point, WHY!
    Possible answer: Mandy’s China links wrote via his consultancy.

    The reason he wanted the Ambassadorship was for prestige, to be back in the thick of it (and how) but also to promote himself. Making his consultancy worth more - higher rates…

    That his vehicle for converting his brownie points, favours and stolen info into money.

    So telling Mandy to dump his biggest clients or not get the job would be tantamount to telling Mandy he couldn’t have the job.

    So he’d have to resign, embarrassing the PM.

    So instead, he was cleared.
    The 'mitigations' that were in place are not something I think the public will ever understand.

    'So, he's not allowed to be alone with his clients because he'd betray the country - so, why's he being made the ambassador in the first place?'

    If you need mitigation like that, basic logic would suggest you shouldn't be given the role.
    To be fair, it’s common for politicians and people appointed into political positions to have to give up outside business links.
    Even Trump has. Oh, maybe wait.....
    Trump has probably made an order of magnitude more profit since his second inauguration than in the whole of the rest of his life.
    Curious if the Trump regime is the most corrupt there has ever been in absolute terms - reflecting that the United States is an exceptionally wealthy country
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,418
    edited April 19

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    Trump: "We can either bomb the shit out of you - or you can give me the win."

    Iran: "If you think bombing the shit out of us gets a win, we'll see you in November after $200 oil and the mid-term results..."
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,910
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    Same with Geneva into France, it suddenly looks scruffier, the roads look different, the French houses have all sorts of crap in their front yards whereas on the Swiss side everything is smart and manicured. It’s not even just driving through, I would walk my dogs in the countryside behind my house and as soon as you saw the old border stones for Geneva/Savoie the vineyards weren’t as manicured and there were more ramshackle houses.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The south is somewhere around 10 to 20% better off in terms of median income and disposable income (GDP figures are a bit misleading in this particular case).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,692
    Interesting thread.

    Recent evidence now points to UAE illegally assisting Reform UK, so I started digging more into it and it's not just fundraisers 🚨 Nadhim Zahawi is linked to Habib al Mulla, who has been put in an intelligence report as content producer for far-right accounts.
    https://x.com/OneFinanceGuy/status/2045777385346253202
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,418
    edited April 19
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    Coming up in August to the 50th anniversary of me going from the UK to Greece through the Iron Curtain.

    West Germany to East Germany was quite stark, but at least they tried to make East Germany look like a showcase for Successful Socialism.

    But man alive, the border between East Germany and the then Czechoslovakia was like the border between the mid twentieth century and the fifteenth. The Soviet Union had only invaded it less than a decade before. It took everything of value for itself.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    It's more pronounced the further south you get. And it explains why the Republic in no way wants the six counties.
  • Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    Double bubble for Sunday working and a call-out fee on top! You're minted.
    I have just spent 2.5 hours on my Sunday working on a forthcoming case for which I will receive £0. I sometimes think I haven't fully got the hang of this enrichment stuff.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 19
    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    Double bubble for Sunday working and a call-out fee on top! You're minted.
    I have just spent 2.5 hours on my Sunday working on a forthcoming case for which I will receive £0. I sometimes think I haven't fully got the hang of this enrichment stuff.
    If we are going all Four Yorkshireman...I have been in my office since Sat 6am....and not likely to be heading home before the start of the work week.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    DavidL said:

    viewcode said:

    I've been working from home for a bit due to various. So I got up this morning, lobbed a few pills down my neck, brushed my teeth, checked my emails and went to work. I was just about to go to lunch when I realised: it's Sunday, not Monday.

    Weird but true.

    Double bubble for Sunday working and a call-out fee on top! You're minted.
    I have just spent 2.5 hours on my Sunday working on a forthcoming case for which I will receive £0. I sometimes think I haven't fully got the hang of this enrichment stuff.
    If we are going all Four Yorkshireman...I have been in my office since Sat 6am....and not likely to be heading home before the start of the work week.
    Your domestic issues are really not our concern.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    Excluding the SE, the UK as a whole compared to lots of countries I have recently visited has a similar vibe
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 19
    Former transport secretary Louise Haigh will outline an economic agenda to help voters with the cost of living in one of her most significant interventions since being forced out of cabinet 18 months ago.

    https://news.sky.com/story/louise-haigh-to-set-out-economic-polices-that-can-unite-labour-in-new-intervention-13533279

    How everybody can get a new phone every year?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    isam said:
    It should have read "no knowledge of events, only tools"....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    I may struggle to sleep tonight worrying about that.
  • isamisam Posts: 44,230
    All politicians have, on occasions, to rally to their leader’s flag and say things they know to be absurd. I said Boris should go on forever and then found out he had already resigned…

    https://x.com/jacob_rees_mogg/status/2045827534730752004?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,910

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    Under most US presidents I imagine the US would step in to help Ireland if things were bad for them, good for the “Irish”vote.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828
    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    Idle hands make light of the Devil's work.

    Keep them busy. Loads of council jobs, loads of council contractor jobs, loads of civil service jobs on tap in the North. You don't want people painting flagstones red, white and blue or green, orange and white do you?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 47,919
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    I may struggle to sleep tonight worrying about that.
    Dunno, as a true Brit you might toss and turn a little over the idea that a sub optimal defence of Ireland would be very intimately connected with a sub optimal ability to defend the UK.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,848

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    So begins another iteration of the Trump Matrix.
  • Battlebus said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    It's more pronounced the further south you get. And it explains why the Republic in no way wants the six counties.
    I think an awful lot of them DO in theory. But in reality it’s extremely unlikely to happen. Partly because of that prosperity (which is visibly spilling across the border, intriguingly)

    Go through any hard Protestant area and the flags are everywhere. These people will never peacefully yield their identity. And the history of Ireland says that terrible terrible violence is never far away. I’ve been doing deep dives on the history. Arguably Ireland has been unusually violent for many centuries

    The best Ireland can hope for and should hope for is pretty much what they have now. There is an all Ireland identity in many areas - from rugby to energy. But there is still enough Britishness to keep the loyalists quiet. Imperil this and the violence will come back and the economies will implode

    Keep on keeping on, with this halfway house, and everyone can keep making money
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886

    isam said:
    It should have read "no knowledge of events, only tools"....
    "This item is for display only. Please refer to the cabinet office for more information."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    I may struggle to sleep tonight worrying about that.
    Dunno, as a true Brit you might toss and turn a little over the idea that a sub optimal defence of Ireland would be very intimately connected with a sub optimal ability to defend the UK.
    Oh that I do worry about. We seem to get incredibly little for the £60bn we spend on defence. This needs to change. Urgently.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    So begins another iteration of the Trump Matrix.
    You know, I am pretty sure that I have seen this one.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 22,100



    What are Burnham’s policies?



    AI Overview
    As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham focuses on "Manchesterism"—a "radical, pragmatist" approach prioritizing social justice, public ownership, and devolution. Key policies include integrating health and social care, the "Housing First" homeless initiative, introducing a £2 bus fare cap (the Bee Network), promoting a living wage, and advocating for nationalizing utilities.
    Key Policy Areas

    Transport (The Bee Network): Implemented a major overhaul of transport in Greater Manchester, bringing buses under public control with capped fares to reduce inequality.
    Housing and Homelessness: Implemented Housing First, a scheme that provides secure housing alongside support, helping over 450 people since 2019.
    Health and Social Care: Long-time advocate for a National Care Service that integrates social care with the NHS.
    Economic Strategy: Promotes a "Living Wage City-Region" agreement covering over 200 employers, and favors public ownership of essential services like water and energy.
    Political Reform: Proposes reducing the voting age to 16, reforming the House of Lords to a "second mandate" system, and empowering regional leaders.

    "Manchesterism" Perspective
    Burnham's approach is increasingly seen as a unique model for local governance that focuses on "five foundations of life": shelter, safety, mobility, opportunity, and support.
  • boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    Under most US presidents I imagine the US would step in to help Ireland if things were bad for them, good for the “Irish”vote.
    Not at all sure that’s true any more. Americans of all stripes have had enough of Europeans who freeload. And that very definitely includes Ireland

    I suspect Biden will turn out to be the last obviously pro Irish president
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 2,220

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2045825891817676868

    Why does Sir Keir Starmer want to be Prime Minister? It’s hard to know. But what’s certain is that Britain is paying the price of having a PM with no interest in doing the job.

    Perhaps you think ‘all politicians are liars’. Yet the disgraceful appointment of Peter Mandelson points not just to dishonesty, but to a prime minister too idle to ask basic questions and too weak to face the answers.

    Even by his own defence (fanciful as it is), Starmer has shown himself lacking in any grip, to be lazy in his thinking and, as it turns out, too idle to ask the most basic questions of his staff.

    In fact, the real scandal is not the appointment of Mandelson - serious though that is - but the woeful direction of our country under Starmer.

    So she’s already back-pedalling on what she said yesterday?

    Why does Badenoch want to be PM? She was literally in the government very recently, why did she not seem to do much?
    This shows how utterly clueless, out of her depth and incompetent she is.

    Twitter Twatter

    She can't do anything other than read notes pre prepared for her as off script she's about as nimble as Cyril Smith.

    Why does Kemi Badenoch want to be PM

    FFS someone put her out of her abject misery
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,910
    Leon said:

    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    Under most US presidents I imagine the US would step in to help Ireland if things were bad for them, good for the “Irish”vote.
    Not at all sure that’s true any more. Americans of all stripes have had enough of Europeans who freeload. And that very definitely includes Ireland

    I suspect Biden will turn out to be the last obviously pro Irish president
    Yes, I should have put it in the past tense.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,910
    Brixian59 said:

    https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/2045825891817676868

    Why does Sir Keir Starmer want to be Prime Minister? It’s hard to know. But what’s certain is that Britain is paying the price of having a PM with no interest in doing the job.

    Perhaps you think ‘all politicians are liars’. Yet the disgraceful appointment of Peter Mandelson points not just to dishonesty, but to a prime minister too idle to ask basic questions and too weak to face the answers.

    Even by his own defence (fanciful as it is), Starmer has shown himself lacking in any grip, to be lazy in his thinking and, as it turns out, too idle to ask the most basic questions of his staff.

    In fact, the real scandal is not the appointment of Mandelson - serious though that is - but the woeful direction of our country under Starmer.

    So she’s already back-pedalling on what she said yesterday?

    Why does Badenoch want to be PM? She was literally in the government very recently, why did she not seem to do much?
    This shows how utterly clueless, out of her depth and incompetent she is.

    Twitter Twatter

    She can't do anything other than read notes pre prepared for her as off script she's about as nimble as Cyril Smith.

    Why does Kemi Badenoch want to be PM

    FFS someone put her out of her abject misery
    Interesting.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    https://x.com/jonkarl/status/2045853176390107245

    President Trump just told me Vance will not be going to Islamabad. He said the issue is security — the Secret Service couldn’t do it on 24 hours notice.

    “It’s only because of security,” he told me. “JD’s great.”


    https://x.com/jonkarl/status/2045863214257185082

    And another update: A senior US official tells ABC News that VP Vance is going to Islamabad and will be leading the US delegation
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,828

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    Do you post this old gubbins as an information service or for the black comedy effect?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,388

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    So begins another iteration of the Trump Matrix.
    Yep.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,579
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    I may struggle to sleep tonight worrying about that.
    Dunno, as a true Brit you might toss and turn a little over the idea that a sub optimal defence of Ireland would be very intimately connected with a sub optimal ability to defend the UK.
    Oh that I do worry about. We seem to get incredibly little for the £60bn we spend on defence. This needs to change. Urgently.
    This sentiment can be extended to all puic procurement and public sector programmes. HS2 is incredibly poor value for money and the next nuclear reactors will be too.

    The civil service doesn't know how to not gold plate projects and how to tell the bat tunnel people to get fucked.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,366

    If I may be permitted, a moan. Running a business is a pain in the arse. I now run 3 businesses. Part of the pain is the idiot red tape, such as the new Director ID verification codes. Have got said code. Have submitted said code in the window required. Code accepted. Filed a Confirmation Statement confirming we are Directors and PSCs. Requiring our codes to submit. All accepted.

    Away last week. back into the office today to do some urgent work. Shouty letters (1 each for me and wifey) saying we are OVERDUE submitting identity. Nope. So I go onto CH and check. Confirmation Statement accepted. IDs verified. So I follow the link on the letter to see WTF they're on about. PSC identity not verified. But it is verified - that's what the Confirmation Statement with the verified IDs has done.

    Nope. It appears that when you file a Confirmation Statement to verify you are a Director and a PSC, and you submit your ID code to confirm you are a director and PSC, and they accept that ID and your Confirmation Statement submission that you are a Director and PSC, you're not actually doing the PS bit. Despite the CS legally confirming it. Instead you have to go online in a set 14 day window - a *different* 14 day window - and submit your ID as a Confirmation Statement no longer Confirms your Statement.

    Following me? And who brought in this red tape nightmare? Yep, the TORIES.

    WTAFFF were they thinking?

    And that's for ONE business. Have the next 2 to look forward to. Oh, and if the system drops a middle name on one business, or registers you repeatedly with the same details as different registered directors / PSCs etc it shouts at you complaining your details do not match.

    Its like they don't want people to go and make money for the economy. Cockwombles!

    In order to sign up, I had to get a passport (£100-ish) which meant downloading the Teams app (new ipad £400) despite the fact everyone bar the Passport Office can use Teams over the web. Eventually Companies House gave me a top secret code that had to be kept secret but you can't use it online and have to give it to some accountant who is free to pass it round the typing pool (ask your gran).
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,309
    edited April 19

    If I may be permitted, a moan. Running a business is a pain in the arse. I now run 3 businesses. Part of the pain is the idiot red tape, such as the new Director ID verification codes. Have got said code. Have submitted said code in the window required. Code accepted. Filed a Confirmation Statement confirming we are Directors and PSCs. Requiring our codes to submit. All accepted.

    Away last week. back into the office today to do some urgent work. Shouty letters (1 each for me and wifey) saying we are OVERDUE submitting identity. Nope. So I go onto CH and check. Confirmation Statement accepted. IDs verified. So I follow the link on the letter to see WTF they're on about. PSC identity not verified. But it is verified - that's what the Confirmation Statement with the verified IDs has done.

    Nope. It appears that when you file a Confirmation Statement to verify you are a Director and a PSC, and you submit your ID code to confirm you are a director and PSC, and they accept that ID and your Confirmation Statement submission that you are a Director and PSC, you're not actually doing the PS bit. Despite the CS legally confirming it. Instead you have to go online in a set 14 day window - a *different* 14 day window - and submit your ID as a Confirmation Statement no longer Confirms your Statement.

    Following me? And who brought in this red tape nightmare? Yep, the TORIES.

    WTAFFF were they thinking?

    And that's for ONE business. Have the next 2 to look forward to. Oh, and if the system drops a middle name on one business, or registers you repeatedly with the same details as different registered directors / PSCs etc it shouts at you complaining your details do not match.

    Its like they don't want people to go and make money for the economy. Cockwombles!

    One of the advantages of timing your company accounting year so that it doesn’t match the April financial year is that you get a bit of breathing space while everyone else gets to experience the full force of UK governmental bureaucracy all at once.

    Insisting on verifiable ID for company Directors & PSCs is long overdue of course, but it does sound like CH may have overcooked things a tad.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    Not sure it has been asked today but is Trump sane?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,502
    Battlebus said:

    Not sure it has been asked today but is Trump sane?

    No.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,309
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    The Republic has benefited from decades of letting the UK pay to defend their country.
    Recent evidence suggests that if the shit had ever hit the fan (which it didn’t), any defence of Ireland by the UK might have been sub optimal.
    I may struggle to sleep tonight worrying about that.
    Dunno, as a true Brit you might toss and turn a little over the idea that a sub optimal defence of Ireland would be very intimately connected with a sub optimal ability to defend the UK.
    Oh that I do worry about. We seem to get incredibly little for the £60bn we spend on defence. This needs to change. Urgently.
    This sentiment can be extended to all puic procurement and public sector programmes. HS2 is incredibly poor value for money and the next nuclear reactors will be too.

    The civil service doesn't know how to not gold plate projects and how to tell the bat tunnel people to get fucked.
    To be fair the CS, generations of politicians have encouraged them in this by setting up the bureaucracies that employ all those civil servants that do important things like ensure that a nuclear reactor never ever emits any radiation whatsoever even if it’s less than the background radiation from the local geology, or to protect the lives of bats regardless of cost etc etc.

    Politicians like creating bureaucracies that do things the electorate like the sound of: the electorate doesn’t like to hear about trade-offs or cost-benefit calculations so maybe we get the bureaucracies we deserve?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045843910870683828

    Trump: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY! They’ll come down fast, they’ll come down easy and, if they don’t take the DEAL, it will be my Honor to do what has to be done, which should have been done to Iran, by other Presidents, for the last 47 years. IT’S TIME FOR THE IRAN KILLING MACHINE TO END! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

    Do you post this old gubbins as an information service or for the black comedy effect?
    Trump is the pinnacle of infotainment.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,876
    Phil said:

    If I may be permitted, a moan. Running a business is a pain in the arse. I now run 3 businesses. Part of the pain is the idiot red tape, such as the new Director ID verification codes. Have got said code. Have submitted said code in the window required. Code accepted. Filed a Confirmation Statement confirming we are Directors and PSCs. Requiring our codes to submit. All accepted.

    Away last week. back into the office today to do some urgent work. Shouty letters (1 each for me and wifey) saying we are OVERDUE submitting identity. Nope. So I go onto CH and check. Confirmation Statement accepted. IDs verified. So I follow the link on the letter to see WTF they're on about. PSC identity not verified. But it is verified - that's what the Confirmation Statement with the verified IDs has done.

    Nope. It appears that when you file a Confirmation Statement to verify you are a Director and a PSC, and you submit your ID code to confirm you are a director and PSC, and they accept that ID and your Confirmation Statement submission that you are a Director and PSC, you're not actually doing the PS bit. Despite the CS legally confirming it. Instead you have to go online in a set 14 day window - a *different* 14 day window - and submit your ID as a Confirmation Statement no longer Confirms your Statement.

    Following me? And who brought in this red tape nightmare? Yep, the TORIES.

    WTAFFF were they thinking?

    And that's for ONE business. Have the next 2 to look forward to. Oh, and if the system drops a middle name on one business, or registers you repeatedly with the same details as different registered directors / PSCs etc it shouts at you complaining your details do not match.

    Its like they don't want people to go and make money for the economy. Cockwombles!

    One of the advantages of timing your company accounting year so that it doesn’t match the April financial year is that you get a bit of breathing space while everyone else gets to experience the full force of UK governmental bureaucracy all at once.

    Insisting on verifiable ID for company Directors & PSCs is long overdue of course, but it does sound like CH may have overcooked things a tad.
    FPT:
    Why Director ID is needed is beyond my paygrade, but I can fairly easily imagine the abuses that it's meant to deal with.

    But to do that, there is clearly some admin that needs to be done. As a nation, we either do that by having civil servants in offices doing stuff (which has direct costs) or by having directors doing stuff (which appears to be free). Same as everything else- we go for self-"service" because it seems cheaper even if it's worse value because it ignores the value of people's time. I suspect digital tax is the same thought process- it's a very Osborne-Hammond-Sunak worldview.

    Besides, there's also an observation that I saw and I wish I could take the credit for. One of Britain's self-understandings is that it isn't a "papers please" society. The reality is that there are very many instances where we are, with the twist that the government requires papers to be shown without providing reliable papers to show.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,922

    Phil said:

    If I may be permitted, a moan. Running a business is a pain in the arse. I now run 3 businesses. Part of the pain is the idiot red tape, such as the new Director ID verification codes. Have got said code. Have submitted said code in the window required. Code accepted. Filed a Confirmation Statement confirming we are Directors and PSCs. Requiring our codes to submit. All accepted.

    Away last week. back into the office today to do some urgent work. Shouty letters (1 each for me and wifey) saying we are OVERDUE submitting identity. Nope. So I go onto CH and check. Confirmation Statement accepted. IDs verified. So I follow the link on the letter to see WTF they're on about. PSC identity not verified. But it is verified - that's what the Confirmation Statement with the verified IDs has done.

    Nope. It appears that when you file a Confirmation Statement to verify you are a Director and a PSC, and you submit your ID code to confirm you are a director and PSC, and they accept that ID and your Confirmation Statement submission that you are a Director and PSC, you're not actually doing the PS bit. Despite the CS legally confirming it. Instead you have to go online in a set 14 day window - a *different* 14 day window - and submit your ID as a Confirmation Statement no longer Confirms your Statement.

    Following me? And who brought in this red tape nightmare? Yep, the TORIES.

    WTAFFF were they thinking?

    And that's for ONE business. Have the next 2 to look forward to. Oh, and if the system drops a middle name on one business, or registers you repeatedly with the same details as different registered directors / PSCs etc it shouts at you complaining your details do not match.

    Its like they don't want people to go and make money for the economy. Cockwombles!

    One of the advantages of timing your company accounting year so that it doesn’t match the April financial year is that you get a bit of breathing space while everyone else gets to experience the full force of UK governmental bureaucracy all at once.

    Insisting on verifiable ID for company Directors & PSCs is long overdue of course, but it does sound like CH may have overcooked things a tad.
    FPT:
    Why Director ID is needed is beyond my paygrade, but I can fairly easily imagine the abuses that it's meant to deal with.

    But to do that, there is clearly some admin that needs to be done. As a nation, we either do that by having civil servants in offices doing stuff (which has direct costs) or by having directors doing stuff (which appears to be free). Same as everything else- we go for self-"service" because it seems cheaper even if it's worse value because it ignores the value of people's time. I suspect digital tax is the same thought process- it's a very Osborne-Hammond-Sunak worldview.

    Besides, there's also an observation that I saw and I wish I could take the credit for. One of Britain's self-understandings is that it isn't a "papers please" society. The reality is that there are very many instances where we are, with the twist that the government requires papers to be shown without providing reliable papers to show.
    One common fraud has been randomly picking people and appointing them as directors of (usually newly created) dodgy companies - by insisting on ID it makes it far harder to appoint a director who hasn't agreed to be one..
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,309
    Phil said:

    If I may be permitted, a moan. Running a business is a pain in the arse. I now run 3 businesses. Part of the pain is the idiot red tape, such as the new Director ID verification codes. Have got said code. Have submitted said code in the window required. Code accepted. Filed a Confirmation Statement confirming we are Directors and PSCs. Requiring our codes to submit. All accepted.

    Away last week. back into the office today to do some urgent work. Shouty letters (1 each for me and wifey) saying we are OVERDUE submitting identity. Nope. So I go onto CH and check. Confirmation Statement accepted. IDs verified. So I follow the link on the letter to see WTF they're on about. PSC identity not verified. But it is verified - that's what the Confirmation Statement with the verified IDs has done.

    Nope. It appears that when you file a Confirmation Statement to verify you are a Director and a PSC, and you submit your ID code to confirm you are a director and PSC, and they accept that ID and your Confirmation Statement submission that you are a Director and PSC, you're not actually doing the PS bit. Despite the CS legally confirming it. Instead you have to go online in a set 14 day window - a *different* 14 day window - and submit your ID as a Confirmation Statement no longer Confirms your Statement.

    Following me? And who brought in this red tape nightmare? Yep, the TORIES.

    WTAFFF were they thinking?

    And that's for ONE business. Have the next 2 to look forward to. Oh, and if the system drops a middle name on one business, or registers you repeatedly with the same details as different registered directors / PSCs etc it shouts at you complaining your details do not match.

    Its like they don't want people to go and make money for the economy. Cockwombles!

    One of the advantages of timing your company accounting year so that it doesn’t match the April financial year is that you get a bit of breathing space while everyone else gets to experience the full force of UK governmental bureaucracy all at once.

    Insisting on verifiable ID for company Directors & PSCs is long overdue of course, but it does sound like CH may have overcooked things a tad.
    (Having poked Companies House)

    Ah, I see. You have to verify the identity of Directors and PSCs separately, even if they’re the same person. What fun.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,597

    John Rentoul has posted about where it all went wrong for Starmer: welfare U-turn.

    I said this at the time. By U-turning he gave the MPs the total ability to argue against whatever they wanted.

    Right idea, wrong moment. It was the winter fuel U-turn before this.
    Winter fuel was a trivial amount of money (as no indexation since it was introduced) which largely went to wealthy people who didn't need it (was it 25% millionaires) and was becoming a rounding error thanks to the triple-lock.

    Once they backed down on that, how did they think serious welfare cuts were getting through? The weakness was already baked in.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    Virgil van Dijk!!!
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,268
    Sandpit said:

    Virgil van Dijk!!!

    Fergie time has a new slot.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    Battlebus said:

    Sandpit said:

    Virgil van Dijk!!!

    Fergie time has a new slot.
    I hadn’t even realised it was the derby today. We just got back home after the weekend away, and decided to go to the local pub for dinner because we couldn’t be arsed cooking. Apparently not the best of games, but we only saw the injury time and I’m a Liverpool fan!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 46,467
    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    I’m so glad I’m not going. This is going to be awful.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,838
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    England's third group game is there too
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    If that wins Arsenal the league…
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,510
    For the World Cup, the *cheapest* tickets I can buy, for a game no-one wants to go to, are like $2,000.

    It's absurd.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,287
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    edited April 19
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, not in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    rcs1000 said:

    For the World Cup, the *cheapest* tickets I can buy, for a game no-one wants to go to, are like $2,000.

    It's absurd.

    How late will they leave it to reduce ticket prices, or will they instead ship in tens of thousands of schoolkids and local ‘soccer club’ members to avoid the embarrassment of half-empty stadia and the lawsuits from full-price ticket-holders?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,446

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, no in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    Do people really have prawn sandwiches? Yuk. Spoils a piece of bread.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,502
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, no in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    Do people really have prawn sandwiches? Yuk. Spoils a piece of bread.
    2 pieces, shurely?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,246
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, no in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    Do people really have prawn sandwiches? Yuk. Spoils a piece of bread.
    Rare bad AnneJGP opinion.

    A prawn baguette in a mediocre pub is a thing of beauty. Second only to a sausage baguette.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
    Someone should have a word in Trump's ear about building a Big Beautiful Bridge.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,510
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For the World Cup, the *cheapest* tickets I can buy, for a game no-one wants to go to, are like $2,000.

    It's absurd.

    How late will they leave it to reduce ticket prices, or will they instead ship in tens of thousands of schoolkids and local ‘soccer club’ members to avoid the embarrassment of half-empty stadia and the lawsuits from full-price ticket-holders?
    They will end up shipping in loads of kids

    It's completely ridiculous.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
    Someone should have a word in Trump's ear about building a Big Beautiful Bridge.
    The world’s best bridge, the bridgeiest bridge that’s even been built, right here in America…
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 91,960
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
    Someone should have a word in Trump's ear about building a Big Beautiful Bridge.
    The world’s best bridge, the bridgeiest bridge that’s even been built, right here in America…
    And the Mexican FA will be paying for it....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,440

    Leon said:

    Crossing the invisible border into Ireland and it is noticeably richer. Not a crazy difference - but little things. Roads slightly better kept. Superior street lights. Newer cars

    Like crossing the non frontier from Germany into Luxembourg

    Coming up in August to the 50th anniversary of me going from the UK to Greece through the Iron Curtain.

    West Germany to East Germany was quite stark, but at least they tried to make East Germany look like a showcase for Successful Socialism.

    But man alive, the border between East Germany and the then Czechoslovakia was like the border between the mid twentieth century and the fifteenth. The Soviet Union had only invaded it less than a decade before. It took everything of value for itself.
    Some time in late 80's the British Council sent me to Czechoslovakia. Landed in Prague, travelled slowly to Bratislava, then into Austria, plane home from Vienna.

    As you suggest, the contrast between Slovakia and Austria was STARK.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 59,886

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
    Someone should have a word in Trump's ear about building a Big Beautiful Bridge.
    The world’s best bridge, the bridgeiest bridge that’s even been built, right here in America…
    And the Mexican FA will be paying for it....
    "European fans will be paying for it... They didn't help us in Hormuz so they've gotta pay."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920
    Eabhal said:

    If that wins Arsenal the league…

    I think City have got this. And the league as well.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 61,689

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, not in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    Which makes one wonder just how many people benefitted from serious amounts of government cash during the pandemic, all of which was borrowed by the government.

    Miami and LV F1 tickets are trading for $4,000 or thereabouts, for what at Silverstone is £700 or £800, and at Abu Dhabi £500 or £600.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,593
    edited April 19

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, not in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    The place where I booked my ticket for last year's Las Vegas Grand Prix (which i didn't go to) sent me an email for this year's Superbowl.

    $18,000 for a bog standard ticket with no corporate hospitality.

    $90,000 for the top of the range ticket.

    For one of the college games they had basic tickets were north of $2,000
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,593
    My first visit to the Hill Dicky was wonderful.

    I think that's Liverpool eighth injury time winner against Everton in the Premier League era.

    Liverpool lift trophies, Everton lift dogs.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 58,920

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    Everyone should just walk. Tartan Army phalanx through one of their ridiculous car dependent cities.
    There’s a lot of physical fences around the area, after several pedestrians were killed on the road.

    A sensible idea would be to build a footbridge, but the taxi drivers’ union would spend millions opposing it.
    Someone should have a word in Trump's ear about building a Big Beautiful Bridge.
    The world’s best bridge, the bridgeiest bridge that’s even been built, right here in America…
    And the Mexican FA will be paying for it....
    "European fans will be paying for it... They didn't help us in Hormuz so they've gotta pay."
    It will be interesting to see if the games in Canada and Mexico have better crowds and atmosphere. Just not going to the US whilst the loon is in charge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 103,814

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Eabhal said:

    $150 return trip to World Cup stadiums, and they’ve made walking to it (an hour) literally illegal.

    People can witter on about GDP per capita but I think a large majority of people in the UK would reject the kind of racketeering that goes on in the US. A broken country.

    they deserve to have empty stadiums , teach FIFA grifters a lesson
    It looks like it’s going to be a real mess in some places.

    The $150 train ride is to the New York / New Jersey Stadium, normally known as the MetLife Stadium. It’s where the NY Giants NFL team plays. It’s located literally in the middle of a motorway junction, and is only accessible by motorway or train.

    There’s a 30,000 capacity car park which FIFA have demanded closed, for security and other event reasons (which are mostly to stop the Amercian tradition of ‘tailgating’, consuming one’s own non-sponsor-friendly food and drink for several hours before the game, to avoid ripoff stadium prices).

    It’s the venue for eight matches, including the final.
    The cost of sports / gig tickets in the US have gone mental since COVID. I went to an ice hockey match the other week, ticket face value $450, not in TSE prawn sandwich suite.
    The place where I booked my ticket for last year's Las Vegas Grand Prix (which i didn't go to) sent me an email for this year's Superbowl.

    $18,000 for a bog standard ticket with no corporate hospitality.

    $90,000 for the top of the range ticket.

    For one of the college games they had basic tickets were north of $2,000
    The world is a lovely place for the millionaires.

    Everybody else? Get fucked.
This discussion has been closed.