Skip to content

Brothers in arms – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,226
edited 2:37PM in General
Brothers in arms – politicalbetting.com

Ed Miliband is now the odds on favourite to be the next ChancellorDavid Miliband is now the odds on favourite to be the next Foreign Secretary pic.twitter.com/1sAcEf8BUe

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,253
    edited 2:40PM
    Oh ffsake, still hoping it'll be Streeting at Chancellor and (No laughing at the back) Starmer as FS. Not this pair of twerps, please !
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,121
    We are in Dire Straits...

    :)
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,010
    Truly Dire Straits if that idiot Miliband is Chancellor

    The nation will be like one of TSE’s Stepmoms

    But he has a very active and vocal campaign from the left in his favour.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 81,253
    edited 2:42PM
    viewcode said:

    We are in Dire Straits...

    :)

    If Ed becomes CoE it'll be money for nothing
  • eekeek Posts: 34,326
    edited 2:44PM
    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,275
    viewcode said:

    We are in Dire Straits...

    :)

    Yay, somebody spotted my subtle music reference.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,384
    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    viewcode said:

    We are in Dire Straits...

    :)

    Will it lead to a Sea of Greens?

    (Yes, I know, different band, but...)
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    Not interesting in its own right (a foreign country decides on immigration policy, whatever) but quite interesting when considering the independence of the judiciary in a superpower that may, or may not, be heading for dictatorship.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,165
    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,165
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    We are in Dire Straits...

    :)

    Will it lead to a Sea of Greens?

    (Yes, I know, different band, but...)
    Like the one in Washington DC?
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    And good evening from the seriously poshed-up (and Russified, but whisper it) city of Batumi, where I'm tucking into a chilled semi-sweet Saperavi from a plastic bottle before dinner.



    After nearly 3 weeks in Turkey where alcohol is available but you feel naughty and transgressive drinking it, especially when the adhan starts sounding, it's a relief to be somewhere it's just normal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,973
    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,304

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    The only ones he's worked with?
    On the upside, can quickly get on D Miliband to be next PM / leader after Burnham... Once the Labour party has decided decapitation is the solution to poor polling
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,973
    Pulpstar said:

    Oh ffsake, still hoping it'll be Streeting at Chancellor and (No laughing at the back) Starmer as FS. Not this pair of twerps, please !

    Labour's support would tank again very quickly with Ed Miliband as Chancellor.

    And he wouldn't be able to help himself.
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,378
    A mixed bag of local by-elections this week. We have Aberdeenshire ( Ind elected as Con), Bolton ( Horwich and Blackrod First), Cheshire West and Chester ( Con), Cotswolds (LD), Dorset (Con), Gloucestershire (LD), Harborough (Lab), Powys (PC), Powys (Ref elected as Ind), Powys (Ref elected as Con), Telford and Wrekin (Lab), Torfaen ( Ref elected as Ind). Something for everybody but chaos in Wales.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,608
    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    The ultimate relationship counselling?
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,795

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    Having the Milibros tear strips of each other for a couple of years neutralises at least one (if not two) potential rivals.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,301
    He ain't a political heavyweight, he's my brother
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,920
    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda.

    That rules out these big beasts like Miliband and Streeting imho.

    Pat McFaden as a dark horse?
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,304
    Pulpstar said:

    Oh ffsake, still hoping it'll be Streeting at Chancellor and (No laughing at the back) Starmer as FS. Not this pair of twerps, please !

    Given Wes can't count to 80 and his successor came to agreement with Drs in less than a month on basis pay increase costs less than 7days strikes/annum, his maths doesn't seem to be up to the job.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,186

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda.

    That rules out these big beasts like Miliband and Streeting imho.

    Pat McFaden as a dark horse?

    That's my bet.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,301
    https://x.com/scotus_wire/status/2071966351019725005

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, including those whose parents are in the country unlawfully or only temporarily, striking down President Trump's executive order.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,126
    David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.

    I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.

    Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,920
    HuffPo reporting more grifting from Farage.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,849

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda.

    That rules out these big beasts like Miliband and Streeting imho.

    Pat McFaden as a dark horse?

    I think three requirements for CoE:

    1. Ability to make the numbers add up. Limited room for fudge.
    2. Someone you trust. CoE can make or break your premiership. Key person to deliver your agenda.
    3. Canny political operator. Very visible role.

    AFAICS, Miliband seems OK for 1 and 2. Not so sure about 3.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,186

    He ain't a political heavyweight, he's my brother

    I doubt either appointment and can't believe he'd do both. It would mean that women are outnumbered in the great offices of state by men called Miliband.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,001
    edited 3:11PM

    HuffPo reporting more grifting from Farage.

    I think it was Morgan Spurlock that said politicians should have to wear patches of companies who have given them money like a NASCAR driver. Farage blazer wouldnt have much blank space.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,782
    The Millibands are clearly Les Boys du jour.

    If I can skate away with that pun, you'll have to wait for my latest trick subject to a private investigation from your local hero.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,301
    boulay said:

    David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.

    I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.

    Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.

    In many ways David Miliband is Labour's Liz Truss. A slightly odd think-tank adjacent figure promoted rapidly through the party while it was in a position of ascendency who eventually reached the position of foreign secretary. Their paths only diverged because Boris Johnson resigned whereas Gordon Brown lost an election.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,956

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,346
    edited 3:14PM
    MelonB said:

    And good evening from the seriously poshed-up (and Russified, but whisper it) city of Batumi, where I'm tucking into a chilled semi-sweet Saperavi from a plastic bottle before dinner.



    After nearly 3 weeks in Turkey where alcohol is available but you feel naughty and transgressive drinking it, especially when the adhan starts sounding, it's a relief to be somewhere it's just normal.

    But the semi-sweet... find some qvevri

    In Kosovo I adopted the practice of going to a bar when the Maghreb call to prayer sounded (sunset) and I wasn't the only one
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,301

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Burnham only needs to string him along until the nomination period ends.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,994
    edited 3:14PM
    Keep Ed Miliband out of the Treasury at all costs. Hes nuts.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 3,488
    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    Talking about birthright citizenship. A Nigerian take on another Nigerian.

    https://lawakhigbe.com/2025/07/29/kemi-badenoch-the-anchor-baby-who-pulled-up-the-drawbridge-by-lawson-akhigbe-lawakhigbe-com/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,186

    boulay said:

    David Miliband is like one of those footballers or other sports players who are out injured for ages and the longer they are out “the better they get” as people forget that they were pretty ordinary.

    I honestly cannot remember anything special that he did as an MP, any great ideas or insights and frankly I think he came across as a bit of an awkward geek.

    Maybe the years earning millions for an international charity have help him develop some great policies.

    In many ways David Miliband is Labour's Liz Truss. A slightly odd think-tank adjacent figure promoted rapidly through the party while it was in a position of ascendency who eventually reached the position of foreign secretary. Their paths only diverged because Boris Johnson resigned whereas Gordon Brown lost an election.
    Slightly different post power careers. Running an international charity vs tweeting non-stop drivel.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    edited 3:22PM
    US Supreme Court upholds that women’s sports are only for women, known as Title IX.

    https://x.com/sidewalk_steve/status/2071970987537535143
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, that’s now going to have to be a constitutional amendment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Sandpit said:

    Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, that’s now going to have to be a constitutional amendment.

    There is no chance of a constitutional amendment.

    Although you might just tweak it past enough states if it was made retrospective and it was pointed out that would mean Trump and Rubio would lose their citzenship...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,001
    edited 3:30PM
    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....£60 / month, best price....i am still going....£55 and i throw in movies...
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,864
    Increasing signs that the era of kowtowing to Trump is over, both home and abroad. He’ll continue to have tantrums while being ignored like a recalcitrant child in the corner.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 60,301
    Sandpit said:

    Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, that’s now going to have to be a constitutional amendment.

    https://x.com/AF_Insight/status/2071971965879922809

    The majority was 5, Barrett and Roberts joining the libs, and the dissenting was 3, Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito.

    You may notice Kavanaugh's name is not there. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence.

    The 5 believe the 14th Amendment clear as day says illegals must be granted citizenship at birth. Yet Kavanaugh disagrees. Kavanaugh believes

    "Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so."

    Kavanagh then goes on to explain why he believes the majority is wrong.

    This presents an huge opening for us. Roberts or a liberal is replaced by a conservative, and we get the filibuster killed and reword "in jurisdiction of" sometime in the 2030s, and we can end birthright citizenship.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    edited 3:33PM
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    Apparently the trick is to tell them you’re cancelling because you’re moving abroad.

    They’ll just cancel it at that point, knowing there’s no way of negotiating.

    Then have a friend or family member sign up for a new contract at the same address.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,121

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda....

    So basically the plot of "Succession" then. Chancellor of the Exchequer Tom Wambsgans

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,552
    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    I have given them 3 months notice and then received phone calls when I said I had told them I had given notice and had an e mail acknowledging it

    They continued to phone and I sent a recorded delivery letter to their head office and still they tried to phone even when I refused to provide answers to their security questions.

    My last DD after 25 plus years is on the 7th July and they will not get another penny

    Shocking behaviour and frankly unacceptable
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,849
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    If (?) you can get pretty much the same thing for £58 without having to do a Mexican standoff every year, it really isn't worth settling for £65. Life is too short for these borderline criminal sales tactics.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    edited 3:45PM

    MelonB said:

    And good evening from the seriously poshed-up (and Russified, but whisper it) city of Batumi, where I'm tucking into a chilled semi-sweet Saperavi from a plastic bottle before dinner.



    After nearly 3 weeks in Turkey where alcohol is available but you feel naughty and transgressive drinking it, especially when the adhan starts sounding, it's a relief to be somewhere it's just normal.

    But the semi-sweet... find some qvevri

    In Kosovo I adopted the practice of going to a bar when the Maghreb call to prayer sounded (sunset) and I wasn't the only one
    Can't have the amber qvevri wine without food. It's semi sweet for aperitif then amber with dinner.

    I have made some passable amber / skin contact Melon B at home (not for sale). The variety suits it quite well.

    EDIT: just ordered some Mtsvane with dinner and waitress asked "do you want a litre?" Wouldn't get that question in a Turkish restaurant.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,608
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    viewcode said:

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda....

    So basically the plot of "Succession" then. Chancellor of the Exchequer Tom Wambsgans

    He needs to get into position quickly and stop all this idle chatter. It's not done any recent politicians any good. Undermines them when they actually do enact policies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Once Burnham is PM, Ed can't force anything.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,844

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    Deeply weird? Maybe. There is certainly a case that neither Miliband brother "does human" but Starmer has broken the scale on that metric. You can see from their records that even if you disagree with them, they are good organisers and administrators. In short, they get things done.

    I cannot think it at all likely they each get one of the Great Offices of State, however. Burnham will be (or ought to be) picking the most effective and balanced team, not simply picking the stars. It's the difference between Fantasy Football and the World Cup.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    Which is actually exactly how you’d want the court to be composed, given the overtly partisan nature of the appointments to it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,121
    edited 3:44PM
    viewcode said:

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda....

    So basically the plot of "Succession" then. Chancellor of the Exchequer Tom Wambsgans

    So the CoE has to be somebody who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda, and already proven to be willing to bend to the direction of the PM.

    Hmmm. Thinks....

    So Rachel Reeves's successor is...Rachel Reeves?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    Apparently the trick is to tell them you’re cancelling because you’re moving abroad.

    They’ll just cancel it at that point, knowing there’s no way of negotiating.

    Then have a friend or family member sign up for a new contract at the same address.
    A thought, perhaps, but as I live alone that would be pushing it a bit.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 1,159

    HuffPo reporting more grifting from Farage.

    I quite fancy a job paying £22,500 per hour too!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,552
    edited 3:45PM
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    I have moved everything to EE including top fibre broad band and full big sports package, multi room plus boost and unlimited sim card use for £99 pm plus £26 for 2 sim cards
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Burnham only needs to string him along until the nomination period ends.
    That occurred to me as well.

    Let's hope it's the Sultans of Spin who are determining the odds, rather than Ed's actual chances.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,384

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    God yes dont remind me.
    Hunt wasnt so bad but Zahawi and Kwarteng were.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,275
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    There's two ways to get a decent discount.

    Make sure your communications preferences are set so Sky can contact you

    1) Let your contract end and within 48 hours (often much quicker) Sky will send you a winback offer which is the best price you can get.

    or

    2) Go on the Virgin Media or EE website and price up their new joiners prices, knock £15 quid off saying you're getting a discount for being a O2 or EE customer and tell Sky that's why you're leaving

    (My way is actually get a friend to work for Sky and get you the friends and family discount), I am currently paying £28.50 for the full Sky package, entertainment channels, sports, cinema, UHD etc.


  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,844
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Jim O'Neil says Burnham needs a CoE who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda....

    So basically the plot of "Succession" then. Chancellor of the Exchequer Tom Wambsgans

    So the CoE has to be somebody who will do what the new PM wants and follow his agenda, and already proven to be willing to bend to the direction of the PM.

    Hmmm. Thinks....

    So Rachel Reeves's successor is...Rachel Reeves?
    Could be. But it's a bit rum for devotees of Mrs Thatcher or Tony Blair to lecture us on the importance of unity and bonhomie between Numbers 10 and 11 – surely they should be arguing Britain prospers when Prime Minister and Chancellor are at each other's throats have creative differences.
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,795
    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Weirdly, last time my VM contract came up for renewal their website offered me a renewal rate of slightly less than I was currently paying. I assume I'm going to pay for bit of luck in this life or the next.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,353
    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    What feud? They would not be in competition. David isn't an MP, so they can't be in competition for leader after Burnham either.

    (Remember, if someone isn't an MP, it's pointless even considering them when it comes to next leader.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    Ukranian F-16 may have flown into Russia and bombed a helicopter base.

    https://x.com/mykhailorohoza/status/2071915857102451080

    There’s also a crazy - but uncorroborated - story of a swarm of tiny Ukranian drones that look like a flock of birds, that landed on a group of aircraft at a Russian base.

    https://x.com/jalle51/status/2071937644339073239

    If that last one stands up to scrutiny, it’s a total gamechanger in military warfare.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,849
    edited 3:51PM
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Once Burnham is PM, Ed can't force anything.
    Agreed, although as pointed out, Miliband is not obviously worse than most recent chancellors. I suspect also Miliband is no longer so ambitious that he will undermine a Burnham premiership if he doesn't get his way (not so sure about Streeting).

    More interesting to me is if Burnham can ignore Miliband's perceived political baggage if he also thinks Miliband is a competent technocratic choice as CoE, which he presumably does.

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,994
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Currently trying to cancel my Sky contract after yet another enormous rise in prices.

    I think they're trying to exasperate me into submission via static while on hold.

    Its all part of the game. The price isnt the price, the price is how much time and patience you have to keep doing the Istanbul Bazzar haggle....i am leaving....i am walking away....
    They wanted me to pay £146.

    After I said no, they offered me £120.

    I pointed out I can get pretty much the same thing for £58.

    It's not as though I watch much TV anyway and I could manage on my mobile data at a pinch.

    So we'll see if they haggle their way to £65. I won't renew for more.
    Apparently the trick is to tell them you’re cancelling because you’re moving abroad.

    They’ll just cancel it at that point, knowing there’s no way of negotiating.

    Then have a friend or family member sign up for a new contract at the same address.
    A thought, perhaps, but as I live alone that would be pushing it a bit.
    I was paying 58 for basic sky plus sports. They told me 80.50. I said tour having a laugh and I was leaving renewed with sky dept that deals with cancellations. After a chat I renewed at at 53.50.... I have been with them best part of 30 yrs mind you.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,844
    edited 3:53PM
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Once Burnham is PM, Ed can't force anything.
    Is that because Burnham's a thick Manc who has not noticed how many of his recent predecessors were forced from office by discontented colleagues, or because he is planning to retire before the election anyway?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Nonetheless, I have to admit to being slightly (and positively) surprised by Roberts cleaving to the actual words of the constitution on a matter so dear to MAGA and Trump.
    Credit where credit is due, since he was essentially the swing vote. (ACB, I think, actually has principles, even if I don't much like most of them.)

    That such a clearcut issue should be decided on a 5/4 vote is in itself pretty shocking to me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    A reminder the three Dems did not attempt to bar Trump from running in 2024 when they could have done.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,608
    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    A reminder the three Dems did not attempt to bar Trump from running in 2024 when they could have done.
    Which case was that?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,608
    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    In Lammy's case at least that's human only in the sense of "well, he's only human".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402
    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    A few of the humans need a "but pretty useless" qualifier.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,353
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Once Burnham is PM, Ed can't force anything.
    Agreed, although as pointed out, Miliband is not obviously worse than most recent chancellors. I suspect also Miliband is no longer so ambitious that he will undermine a Burnham premiership if he doesn't get his way (not so sure about Streeting).

    More interesting to me is if Burnham can ignore Miliband's perceived political baggage if he also thinks Miliband is a competent technocratic choice as CoE, which he presumably does.

    The politically astute way to present Ed M's chancellorship would be to appoint a new energy secretary who is liked by the oil industry, even while quietly sticking to and accelerating the drive to net zero.

    The need for the world - not just the UK, but like defence it requires us all to play a role - to get on top of emissions and steer us away from apocalypse is surely as starkly obvious this year as it's ever been.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    Driver said:

    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    In Lammy's case at least that's human only in the sense of "well, he's only human".
    I like Lammy. Sorry, but I do. That's my LibDem view of the matter
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,844
    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    Ed Balls was very unpopular until he went on Strictly (the thinking politician's Jungle) iirc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Haggled them down by 50% and negotiated a signficant set of upgrades to broadband and TV package.

    Not quite what I wanted but saves running four different accounts and possible interruptions to service.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,608

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
    When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 5,292

    rkrkrk said:

    David Miliband would be a strange one if you're going to make Ed chancellor. Why reignite the brotherly feud stuff?

    Optimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones the punters have heard of.

    Pessimistic take: the Milibros are favourites because they're the only ones Burnham has heard of.
    IMO Eds the only one with enough leverage to pick his next job. He could force a leadership challenge thus he'll be getting the big job.

    Lots of whining on here considering the previous #11 occupants foisted on the country. Zahawi? Kwarteng? Hunt: a man who spent more time planning the next governments financial crisis than his own fiscal probity, NI cuts paid for by future cuts anyone? The ever advancing 'fiscal headroom'...
    Burnham only needs to string him along until the nomination period ends.
    People are forgetting how close an ally E Miliband has been to Burnham during his leadership campaign. See here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/26/andy-burnham-long-coup-chaotic-year-long-project-return-him-westminster

    The one that is more likely to have been strung along is Streeting, who was a genuine rival and after Starmer threw in the towel could potentially have had another stab at getting 81 nominations. Streeting chose instead to ingratiate himself to Burnham but I doubt if that will count for much now. E Miliband would only have challenged in the event that Burnham could not have stood and Streeting had forced a contest.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402
    Alito is in Trump cloud cuckoo land these days.

    Alito's dissent gives the game away:

    "This Court adopts a rule that even England abandoned"

    Yeah. England changed the ancient common law rule by passing a law.

    Not by asking their courts to rewrite history.

    https://x.com/ASFleischman/status/2071972339093258465

    That just ignores the entirety of US constitutional law, and justifies it by saying, "but what about England ?".
    Absolutely nuts that a Supreme Court Justice can just wave away the plain text of the constitution in that manner.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,234
    edited 4:07PM
    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    To be totally fair, Lord Balls as Chief Secretary to the Treasury wouldn’t be the worst appointment Burnham could make.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    A reminder the three Dems did not attempt to bar Trump from running in 2024 when they could have done.
    Which case was that?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,402

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
    Alito doesn't kowtow - he's entirely down with the project.
    And away with the faries.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,635

    Increasing signs that the era of kowtowing to Trump is over, both home and abroad. He’ll continue to have tantrums while being ignored like a recalcitrant child in the corner.

    And also a lot of people are no longer very interested in what he says or does. The media reflect this. For quite a time Trump led every item and nothing else mattered. His image was unavoidable. This has ceased for now.

    To become the only centre of world news again he would have to have a coup or similar to void the November elections and then do something to fix the 2028 election.

    I think there is a working assumption that unless something 1930s German happens, the next interesting question will be 'Who clears up the mess, and how do they go about it, and whose career and reputation goes down with him?'.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    edited 4:13PM
    If Robert Key is not sacked, then it is high time to stage a revolution.

    And I think Brendon McCullum has run his course as well.

    Time for Richard Gould to absolutely grovel to Alec Stewart and Richard Dawson. And if he can't get them, to Rahul Dravid and Gary Kirsten.

    And when that is sorted, we can work out who the new captain should be.

    Hint - it should not be HArry Brook. The man has the attention span as well as the sense of a concussed goldfish.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,275
    ydoethur said:

    If Robert Key is not sacked, then it is high time to stage a revolution.

    And I think Brendon McCullum has run his course as well.

    Time for Richard Gould to absolutely grovel to Alec Stewart and Richard Dawson. And if he can't get them, to Rahul Dravid and Gary Kirsten.
    I'm with Mike Atherton.

    Make Andy Flower England test coach again.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,844
    The Supreme Court Justices realised that USA's chances of winning the World Cup depends on Birthright Citizenship. Trump should have waited till August.

    And their best player, Folarin Balogun, only fluked even that:-

    Balogun was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Nigerian parents. His parents were living in London, but visited New York when his mother was seven months pregnant. However, on their intended return flight, airline staff refused his mother permission to fly due to safety concerns over her given her pregnancy was too advanced at that time, and he was therefore born in New York. He returned to the United Kingdom with his parents when he was two months old, growing up in London, England.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folarin_Balogun
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823

    ydoethur said:

    If Robert Key is not sacked, then it is high time to stage a revolution.

    And I think Brendon McCullum has run his course as well.

    Time for Richard Gould to absolutely grovel to Alec Stewart and Richard Dawson. And if he can't get them, to Rahul Dravid and Gary Kirsten.
    I'm with Mike Atherton.

    Make Andy Flower England test coach again.
    I wouldn't make him coach, perhaps, but there's a good case for making him MD if Stewart can't be persuaded to sign up.
  • MelonBMelonB Posts: 17,508
    Sandpit said:

    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    To be totally fair, Lord Balls as Chief Secretary to the Treasury wouldn’t be the worst appointment Burnham could make.
    There's a surfeit of Eds in upper British political life. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Ed Davey.

    Well ok, there's 3 of them. Not as many as the high days of Graham/Graeme in the England cricketing world of the 1990s. Gooch, Thorpe, Hick, Dilley, (foxy) Fowler, Swann, Rose, Cowdrey...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    Driver said:

    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    Driver said:

    ydoethur said:

    Driver said:

    eek said:

    Trump's attempt to remove Birthright citizenship rights has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

    For more interesting than rumours regarding who will get a new job when Burnham is PM

    At this point, anyone arguing that SCOTUS is a tool of Trump, or some equivalent, is disqualifying themselves from being taken seriously.
    You mean, apart from the three dissenters who said that the Fourteenth Amendment should be ignored because it was something to do with Dems being Woke and all immigrants are basically traitors?

    Essentially, declaring that the Constiution is whatever Trump says it is, however astonishing a position that would be to take for an honest judge.

    (OK, so there was no honest judge in the dissent, but you get my point.)
    Three out of nine can't do anything alone.

    What this court is is what it has been since the last appointment - three who will take the GOP position no matter what, three who will take the Dem position no matter what - and three who will decide based on what the law actually is.

    That's obviously not as good as having zero, zero and nine, but it's probably the best we can hope for under current conditions.

    The idea that "Trump will get his way because the GOP controls SCOTUS" has been clearly shown in the latest batch of judgments to be what it always was - complete bollocks.
    No, because on some judgements, more have sided with the GOP position on entirely flimsy grounds. They don't kowtow all the time, but they do done of the time.
    When it comes to constitutional analysis, "flimsy grounds" are very much in the eye of the beholder.
    Plenty of court judgements are made on frankly ludicrous grounds for partisan reasons (and not just in the US). Roe v Wade would be a classic example.

    But this isn't even arguable. Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. That's what it says in black and white and plain English.

    Just as anyone is entitled to bear arms.

    Are they laws we would have today? No.

    Are they sensible laws? The first arguably no, the second definitely no (the Second Amendment is the craziest law ever proposed, never mind made, not forgetting the legislature of Indiana wanted to make pi=4).

    Are they stuck with them because their constitution? Yes.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,275
    MelonB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    To be totally fair, Lord Balls as Chief Secretary to the Treasury wouldn’t be the worst appointment Burnham could make.
    There's a surfeit of Eds in upper British political life. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Ed Davey.

    Well ok, there's 3 of them. Not as many as the high days of Graham/Graeme in the England cricketing world of the 1990s. Gooch, Thorpe, Hick, Dilley, (foxy) Fowler, Swann, Rose, Cowdrey...
    I always felt Graeme Fowler was very badly treated.

    A double hundred (away to India) in his penultimate test and was dropped to make way for some rebel tourists.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,823
    MelonB said:

    Sandpit said:

    MelonB said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Miliband brothers are deeply weird.

    There's so many different worlds
    So many different suns
    And we have just one world
    But we live in different ones..
    Doing human is important. I'm sure they're all deeply human in real life, but public persona wise there's a lot of robot/alien going on.

    Starmer: bot
    Reeves: bot
    Streeting: human
    Philipson: bot - the sharp bob makes her a cool bot though
    Lammy: human
    Ed Miliband: Human but nerd
    Burnham: human
    Nandy: human
    Cooper: hmm, robot attributes but human just about
    Mahmood: human
    Yeah there's a bunch of others too: Heidi (human), Reynolds (human) etc but I can't be bothered to list them all.

    But they need more humans at the top.
    I'd rather they bring back Ed Balls than David Miliband to be honest
    To be totally fair, Lord Balls as Chief Secretary to the Treasury wouldn’t be the worst appointment Burnham could make.
    There's a surfeit of Eds in upper British political life. Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, Ed Davey.

    Well ok, there's 3 of them. Not as many as the high days of Graham/Graeme in the England cricketing world of the 1990s. Gooch, Thorpe, Hick, Dilley, (foxy) Fowler, Swann, Rose, Cowdrey...
    Three Eds and our politicians still all behave like 'eadless chickens.
Sign In or Register to comment.