Knowing a bit (albeit not much) about publishing June 16th is a very fast publication date for a book that didn't have a title in February. Your far more successful twin is clearly someone the publisher wants to promote....
I am always curious about the legend (allegation?) “The No 1 Bestseller”. It’s seen so often. The book, the author? When, where, in what circumstances?
Now you've done it...expect the thread to be clogged with a gleeful and very lengthy list...
"....number one best seller for translation into Innuit....."
Knowing a bit (albeit not much) about publishing June 16th is a very fast publication date for a book that didn't have a title in February. Your far more successful twin is clearly someone the publisher wants to promote....
I am always curious about the legend (allegation?) “The No 1 Bestseller”. It’s seen so often. The book, the author? When, where, in what circumstances?
I thought it meant the previous book (Ice Twins) reached No1 in the bestseller list?
Knowing a bit (albeit not much) about publishing June 16th is a very fast publication date for a book that didn't have a title in February. Your far more successful twin is clearly someone the publisher wants to promote....
I am always curious about the legend (allegation?) “The No 1 Bestseller”. It’s seen so often. The book, the author? When, where, in what circumstances?
Knowing a bit (albeit not much) about publishing June 16th is a very fast publication date for a book that didn't have a title in February. Your far more successful twin is clearly someone the publisher wants to promote....
I am always curious about the legend (allegation?) “The No 1 Bestseller”. It’s seen so often. The book, the author? When, where, in what circumstances?
In this case, I believe it was across all book shops in the UK for multiple weeks last year...
However, I wouldn't say that out loud as it would probably make him more insufferable and cockier than he usually is....
Knowing a bit (albeit not much) about publishing June 16th is a very fast publication date for a book that didn't have a title in February. Your far more successful twin is clearly someone the publisher wants to promote....
I am always curious about the legend (allegation?) “The No 1 Bestseller”. It’s seen so often. The book, the author? When, where, in what circumstances?
Now you've done it...expect the thread to be clogged with a gleeful and very lengthy list...
"....number one best seller for translation into Innuit....."
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
At least my political predictions are better than my rugby predictions. I did soothsay much of this mayhem, though it's come earlier than I expected. I thought the Tories would be thrown into Cameron-hating, Osborne-loathing turmoil after the euroref, not before.
But the solution remains the same.
Following the likely narrow REMAIN win, Cameron must quietly step down, let a sceptic take over, probably Boris or Gove? The REMAINIANS will have to be content with their referendum victory and let the LEAVERS control the party. If the REMAINIANS try and "purge" the party of "twats" then there will be outright revolt, the europhiles simply don't have the power to do this, setting aside the innate stupidity of such a venture. Europhiles are more likely to end up being ejected themselves.
That way civil war is averted, and a now 98% eurosceptic Tory party can go on to win in 2020, promising a new referendum "when the time is right".
I don't know about all that. I'd say what will be needed post-referendum is a healer to lead the party. The grassroots want to stop Corbyn in 2020 (so we understand) and a uniter who promises that should prevail.
If Cameron can get his act together then there's no reason he can't stay post-EURef providing that he shunts Osborne out of No 11 and replaces him with a Brexiter. Gove would be my choice as mentioned earlier this month by, *ahem* someone on TotalPolitics.
The longer this goes on though, the less Cameron appears able (or even willing) to act as that conciliator.
If the quotes about Cameron wanting a Kristellnacht for the Twats - a final reckoning with the sceptics - are true then the PM has lost a portion of his marbles, and will likely be despatched before he gets the chance to wield his long knife.
It really does sound like civil strife, it not quite civil war. A bit like The Troubles in Ulster, without the colourful murals.
If Remain wins, IDS has basically given Cameron carte blanche for such a Kristellnacht. If leave wins there is now no way on earth that Cameron can stay on.
REMAIN or LEAVE the party is set to destroy Cameron. He won't have the chance to get in his revenge.
If he loses the referendum the right will want Cameron on a plate. If he wins a substantial number of them will demand he be disembowelled as part of the reconcilliation process.
MR CAMERON - PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT MAKE MATTHEW HANCOCK CHANCELLOR. HE HAS THE SAME COCKY MANNER AS OSBORNE AND PEOPLE WILL JUST NOT TAKE TO HIM. THIS JOB NOW NEEDS A WOMAN AND WOULD BE A VERY BOLD MOVE BY THE PM.
I like GO but he is now making too many mistakes and should go after the referendum.
I do agree with whoever said it, that the PM needs a Deputy. He is increasingly distracted by events abroad (this always happens to every PM) and consequently they take their eye off the ball domestically. I would suggest Graham Brady!
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
Labour voters now have an incentive to vote Leave. It's looking very real - one last heave, and both Cameron and Osborne are gone. The guys who gave the Tories the economic and political coherence to win in May 2015. Now both involved in a dance-off.
That's how badly Cameron and Osborne have played the past couple of months. Their departure is a prize within reach of the coalition of the Leavers and the Haters. And the polls were already on a knife-edge....
Corbyn has always been a eurosceptic. All he has to do is be true to himself and he can deliver the coup de grace to Cameron's dying premiership.
I'm steadily increasing my red number against "George Osborne next Conservative leader" on Betfair.
I tried to lay him a few days ago @ 5.5 (when is best back option was 4.5) but didn't get a nibble and his price moved well upwards since then.
He's still way too short on Betfair. I wouldn't back him below 25/1 now.
My political betting money is mostly tied up making a monstrous return on Donald Trump at the moment so the still remarkably illiquid Next Leader market has to lie fallow.
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
I'm steadily increasing my red number against "George Osborne next Conservative leader" on Betfair.
I tried to lay him a few days ago @ 5.5 (when is best back option was 4.5) but didn't get a nibble and his price moved well upwards since then.
He's still way too short on Betfair. I wouldn't back him below 25/1 now.
My political betting money is mostly tied up making a monstrous return on Donald Trump at the moment so the still remarkably illiquid Next Leader market has to lie fallow.
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
To a certain extent, yes. But he is responsible for knowing when the projects - especially the big, important ones such as UC - are going wrong and act accordingly. And AIUI, it wasn't just the IT systems that are failing.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
I wonder if leave will borrow from the No To AV campaign which personalised it around Nick Clegg. This time they could target the same kind of voter who wants to punish Cameron.
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
but it won't end it all...
I think it would. There would be a small unhappy core with the EEA/EFTA but the vast majority of Brexit Tories would want to try and make it work for at least the next 10 years. Including the Carswell/Hannan fraternity.
Energies would be focussed on trade deals, regional policy, regaining UK control where it is currently the ECJ, spending the savings, and on agriculture/fisheries.
I accept Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone would have a different choice but the long-term boil of EU membership would have been lanced.
Dafydd Foster Evans On this day in 1540: Asked if Thomas Cromwell still retained the full confidence of the King, the Royal spokesman said 'Absolutely'.
Cromwell was executed on July 28th 1540, so if the omens follow, Osborne gets the boot two weeks after the EU Referendum
Parliamentary Standards body has opted for none other than Ruth Evans. Readers may better remember her as the former general secretary of the left-wing campaign “War on Want”.
That is the same War on Want that actively supported the tyrannical Sandinista regime on her watch and throughout the 1980s, even going as far as to launch a “Nicaragua Must Survive” campaign backed by George Galloway at the height of the tyranny in 1985. Aside from their Nicaraguan antics they are well known for their anti-Israel campaigns that lead to a number of investigations by the Charities Commission. Nice to see that IPSA is continuing the great Parliamentary tradition of appointing left-wingers in supposedly neutral roles…
"Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all."
I've gone the other way. Why vote Leave and then have almighty disputes about what that means. There is no way you'll get a consensus on immigration policy or the long-term relationship with the single market. if they are at each others' throats now I dread to think what will happen after a Leave win. Better for Remain to win handsomely and we forget about the next couple of months.
I may be missing something that's obvious to people with access to Westminster gossip but this whole thing seems way over-blown.
I'm not the most cynical person when it comes to IDS's resignation but leave will do everything they can to win the referendum, even if it means sabotaging their own party establishment.
And why shouldn't they? For LEAVERS, Brexit is way way more important than any short-term party advantage.
Indeed LEAVERS could argue they are behaving morally: putting country before party.
When your opponent is Corbyn you could argue that putting the party first is putting the country first. Anything that makes Prime Minister Corbyn more likely is damaging to the country.
That is the standard loyalist argument at any time though. People here, probably including yourself, said exactly the same thing about Ed Miliband, and probably about Gordon Brown. No one should ever disagree with the Tory government anyway unless it lets the boogieman in.
Dafydd Foster Evans On this day in 1540: Asked if Thomas Cromwell still retained the full confidence of the King, the Royal spokesman said 'Absolutely'.
Cromwell was executed on July 28th 1540, so if the omens follow, Osborne gets the boot two weeks after the EU Referendum
People would pay good money for Osborne to get his comeuppance on Tower Hill I suspect
Churchill was someone (albeit representing two different parties) who was a member of the coalition government before 1922 and a member of the Baldwin government in 1924.
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
but it won't end it all...
I think it would. There would be a small unhappy core with the EEA/EFTA but the vast majority of Brexit Tories would want to try and make it work for at least the next 10 years. Including the Carswell/Hannan fraternity.
Energies would be focussed on trade deals, regional policy, regaining UK control where it is currently the ECJ, spending the savings, and on agriculture/fisheries.
I accept Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone would have a different choice but the long-term boil of EU membership would have been lanced.
But back in Hague's day the membership was anti-Euro not pro-Leave. 1999 vintage Hague would now be considered a "phile". The Tory Party has steadily moved in a direction opposed to any form of European cooperation. I don't see why that would change.
"Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all."
I've gone the other way. Why vote Leave and then have almighty disputes about what that means. There is no way you'll get a consensus on immigration policy or the long-term relationship with the single market. if they are at each others' throats now I dread to think what will happen after a Leave win. Better for Remain to win handsomely and we forget about the next couple of months.
They will not be at each other's throats if Leave win. Pragmatism will rule the roost to exit the EU as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Of course there may be further debates about our long-term future sometime, but those will be for another day.
Conversely, the infighting and civil war will never end if we vote Remain.
Parliamentary Standards body has opted for none other than Ruth Evans. Readers may better remember her as the former general secretary of the left-wing campaign “War on Want”.
That is the same War on Want that actively supported the tyrannical Sandinista regime on her watch and throughout the 1980s, even going as far as to launch a “Nicaragua Must Survive” campaign backed by George Galloway at the height of the tyranny in 1985. Aside from their Nicaraguan antics they are well known for their anti-Israel campaigns that lead to a number of investigations by the Charities Commission. Nice to see that IPSA is continuing the great Parliamentary tradition of appointing left-wingers in supposedly neutral roles…
Either Wikipedia’s dead wrong .... which TBF as been known ....... when they say "They instituted a policy of mass literacy, devoted significant resources to health care, and promoted gender equality.” or you are. TBH, I suspect therte’s an element of truth on both sides.
I wonder if leave will borrow from the No To AV campaign which personalised it around Nick Clegg. This time they could target the same kind of voter who wants to punish Cameron.
I do not think so. But it would be effective in Labour areas.
I'm steadily increasing my red number against "George Osborne next Conservative leader" on Betfair.
I tried to lay him a few days ago @ 5.5 (when is best back option was 4.5) but didn't get a nibble and his price moved well upwards since then.
He's still way too short on Betfair. I wouldn't back him below 25/1 now.
My political betting money is mostly tied up making a monstrous return on Donald Trump at the moment so the still remarkably illiquid Next Leader market has to lie fallow.
Go on, how big - are you looking at 5 figures ?
Lol, as if.
3 figures . But I'm exposed for basically zip so I suppose technically my ROI is infinite if Trump wins the nom?
EDIT: Basically I am all talk so people should ignore me.
Dafydd Foster Evans On this day in 1540: Asked if Thomas Cromwell still retained the full confidence of the King, the Royal spokesman said 'Absolutely'.
Cromwell was executed on July 28th 1540, so if the omens follow, Osborne gets the boot two weeks after the EU Referendum
People would pay good money for Osborne to get his comeuppance on Tower Hill I suspect
Think of the PPV revenue. Would clear a good chunk of the deficit.
At least my political predictions are better than my rugby predictions. I did soothsay much of this mayhem, though it's come earlier than I expected. I thought the Tories would be thrown into Cameron-hating, Osborne-loathing turmoil after the euroref, not before.
But the solution remains the same.
Following the likely narrow REMAIN win, Cameron must quietly step down, let a sceptic take over, probably Boris or Gove? The REMAINIANS will have to be content with their referendum victory and let the LEAVERS control the party. If the REMAINIANS try and "purge" the party of "twats" then there will be outright revolt, the europhiles simply don't have the power to do this, setting aside the innate stupidity of such a venture. Europhiles are more likely to end up being ejected themselves.
That way civil war is averted, and a now 98% eurosceptic Tory party can go on to win in 2020, promising a new referendum "when the time is right".
I don't know about all that. I'd say what will be needed post-referendum is a healer to lead the party. The grassroots want to stop Corbyn in 2020 (so we understand) and a uniter who promises that should prevail.
If Cameron can get his act together then there's no reason he can't stay post-EURef providing that he shunts Osborne out of No 11 and replaces him with a Brexiter. Gove would be my choice as mentioned earlier this month by, *ahem* someone on TotalPolitics.
The longer this goes on though, the less Cameron appears able (or even willing) to act as that conciliator.
If the quotes about Cameron wanting a Kristellnacht for the Twats - a final reckoning with the sceptics - are true then the PM has lost a portion of his marbles, and will likely be despatched before he gets the chance to wield his long knife.
It really does sound like civil strife, it not quite civil war. A bit like The Troubles in Ulster, without the colourful murals.
If Remain wins, IDS has basically given Cameron carte blanche for such a Kristellnacht. If leave wins there is now no way on earth that Cameron can stay on.
REMAIN or LEAVE the party is set to destroy Cameron. He won't have the chance to get in his revenge.
If he loses the referendum the right will want Cameron on a plate. If he wins a substantial number of them will demand he be disembowelled as part of the reconcilliation process.
If he loses the referendum then the right should get down on their knees, weep and thank Cameron for getting them out of Europe. If it weren't for him there would have been no referendum for them to have just won.
The IDS resignation has acted as a lightning rod to conduct all the frustrations between the Cameroons and the Tory Right that have built up over the last 10 years, particularly the last six, and it ain't pretty.
I feel like we've gone back to the Summer of 2005.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
but it won't end it all...
I think it would. There would be a small unhappy core with the EEA/EFTA but the vast majority of Brexit Tories would want to try and make it work for at least the next 10 years. Including the Carswell/Hannan fraternity.
Energies would be focussed on trade deals, regional policy, regaining UK control where it is currently the ECJ, spending the savings, and on agriculture/fisheries.
I accept Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone would have a different choice but the long-term boil of EU membership would have been lanced.
But back in Hague's day the membership was anti-Euro not pro-Leave. 1999 vintage Hague would now be considered a "phile". The Tory Party has steadily moved in a direction opposed to any form of European cooperation. I don't see why that would change.
It has grown opposed to European Union as the nature and destination of that project became abundantly clear, and developed further and further.
It has never been about outright hostility to Europe as a continent or a desire to have no trade deals with them whatsoever.
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
To a certain extent, yes. But he is responsible for knowing when the projects - especially the big, important ones such as UC - are going wrong and act accordingly. And AIUI, it wasn't just the IT systems that are failing.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
If its anything like other IT projects I've worked on, the people working on the project will be screaming we need 6 more months while management is going. yep ready to go live next week...
I'm steadily increasing my red number against "George Osborne next Conservative leader" on Betfair.
I tried to lay him a few days ago @ 5.5 (when is best back option was 4.5) but didn't get a nibble and his price moved well upwards since then.
He's still way too short on Betfair. I wouldn't back him below 25/1 now.
My political betting money is mostly tied up making a monstrous return on Donald Trump at the moment so the still remarkably illiquid Next Leader market has to lie fallow.
Go on, how big - are you looking at 5 figures ?
Lol, as if.
3 figures . But I'm exposed for basically zip so I suppose technically my ROI is infinite if Trump wins the nom?
EDIT: Basically I am all talk so people should ignore me.
FPT: np, Mr. Labour. I usually have mine offline and use the 3G when online, so I would've missed this otherwise.
FPT: Mr. Urquhart, apologies for not replying at the time (I left right before you asked).
Unsure about Patreon for writers (both in terms of whether it's right, and whether it actually works financially). Episodic release is sort-of what happens anyway (that's what I'm going to try and promote when the trilogy comes out).
If possible, I'd prefer to stick to a hybrid approach (part traditionally published, part self-published). Self-publishing still has some stigma, but it also means you've got far more control over the schedule (ie no year long delays), pricing, cover and content, but traditional stuff is easier for marketing and you get more kudos.
Things like crowdfunding work very well for videogames or tech ideas, but I'm not sure they fit publishing.
I would say (as a general point, not just about my own stuff) if you like something, do review, rate, recommend it to your friends. Word of mouth can't be manufactured but it's incredibly useful for authors. It's also good for readers, because you find out about good books that would've otherwise been off your radar.
They will not be at each other's throats if Leave win.
ROFL
The anti-immigration brigade will be crying "betrayal" before the ink is dry on the inevitable free movement of people deal.
We will look back on the current 'infighting' as the halcyon days of party unity...
No, they will campaign for a new deal if EEA/EFTA one doesn't work out for us. But they will be happy with the sovereignty regained in justice, finance and trade in the short term - a partial win is still one to be celebrated, as Sean Fear and Richard Tyndall (both Kippers) have attested to.
Btw, rein it in a bit, eh?
You are one of the worst behaved Remain posters on here.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak Welfare cap has already been breached after all and it may well prove just impossible to achieve politically and practically
Interesting.. GO (no, not that one) have just emailed me to ask for my endorsement to aid their designation as the official Leave campaign to the electoral commission.
Think I'll be ignoring that one.
(But once again the organisation of Vote Leave is found wanting.. Where is their equivalent email?)
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Labour voters now have an incentive to vote Leave. It's looking very real - one last heave, and both Cameron and Osborne are gone. The guys who gave the Tories the economic and political coherence to win in May 2015. Now both involved in a dance-off.
That's how badly Cameron and Osborne have played the past couple of months. Their departure is a prize within reach of the coalition of the Leavers and the Haters. And the polls were already on a knife-edge....
Corbyn has always been a eurosceptic. All he has to do is be true to himself and he can deliver the coup de grace to Cameron's dying premiership.
The irony is that the best way of saving himself would be to do that and remove Cameron...
Interesting.. GO (no, not that one) have just emailed me to ask for my endorsement to aid their designation as the official Leave campaign to the electoral commission.
Think I'll be ignoring that one.
(But once again the organisation of Vote Leave is found wanting.. Where is their equivalent email?)
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
tell your mate it would be greatly appreciated if he'd take in to consideration how life would be if we'd jouned the euro
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
FPT: np, Mr. Labour. I usually have mine offline and use the 3G when online, so I would've missed this otherwise.
FPT: Mr. Urquhart, apologies for not replying at the time (I left right before you asked).
Unsure about Patreon for writers (both in terms of whether it's right, and whether it actually works financially). Episodic release is sort-of what happens anyway (that's what I'm going to try and promote when the trilogy comes out).
If possible, I'd prefer to stick to a hybrid approach (part traditionally published, part self-published). Self-publishing still has some stigma, but it also means you've got far more control over the schedule (ie no year long delays), pricing, cover and content, but traditional stuff is easier for marketing and you get more kudos.
Things like crowdfunding work very well for videogames or tech ideas, but I'm not sure they fit publishing.
I would say (as a general point, not just about my own stuff) if you like something, do review, rate, recommend it to your friends. Word of mouth can't be manufactured but it's incredibly useful for authors. It's also good for readers, because you find out about good books that would've otherwise been off your radar.
Morris,
Hope you don't mind me being a nosy parker, but I'm curious how you've been getting on - have you had to lead the lifestyle of the starving writer, or have you been able to sustain yourself with the self-publishing while you're waiting/hoping for a publishing deal? Or, worst case, had to head back to "proper" work, at least on a part-time basis?
If I ever get around to it, I'd like to wind down some of my business activities at some point and convert some of the writing that I do for clients for the purposes of my job into writing for the purposes of making money directly from writing (completely different sphere to you, though!). For which self-publishing is one of the options, of course, but I really haven't got my head around the financial aspects of it, or how sustainable the self-publishing model is. My current thinking is somewhat sceptical that I could generate any more revenue out of it than I would be able to do so if I devoted my time to my business instead (which has somewhat discouraged me taking the plunge, though it's on the table as a serious possibility for lifestyle rather than financial reasons), but it's quite possible that the self-publishing world has evolved significantly since I last took a serious look at it a few years ago.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
So that they don't get fined many thousands of pounds, under legislation introduced by Labour.
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
Perhaps to check you're entitled to work in this country?
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
If he loses the referendum then the right should get down on their knees, weep and thank Cameron for getting them out of Europe. If it weren't for him there would have been no referendum for them to have just won.
Or arguably if he hadn't promised the referendum the kippers would have 12 seats now not 1 and there would be a supply and confidence arrangement between the kippers and the tories since the LDs aren't interested.... and the referendum would have happened anyway, although with the government sitting it out to as they would not agree on a platform. Who knows.
Churchill was someone (albeit representing two different parties) who was a member of the coalition government before 1922 and a member of the Baldwin government in 1924.
Churchill had stood as a Constitutionalist Candidate in Epping in 1924. He had been opposed by an Asquithian Liberal and Labour.
Not quite - we are in government! In 2005 government looked completely out of reach.
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
Yeah, I know that Richard!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
but it won't end it all...
I think it would. There would be a small unhappy core with the EEA/EFTA but the vast majority of Brexit Tories would want to try and make it work for at least the next 10 years. Including the Carswell/Hannan fraternity.
Energies would be focussed on trade deals, regional policy, regaining UK control where it is currently the ECJ, spending the savings, and on agriculture/fisheries.
I accept Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone would have a different choice but the long-term boil of EU membership would have been lanced.
But back in Hague's day the membership was anti-Euro not pro-Leave. 1999 vintage Hague would now be considered a "phile". The Tory Party has steadily moved in a direction opposed to any form of European cooperation. I don't see why that would change.
It has grown opposed to European Union as the nature and destination of that project became abundantly clear, and developed further and further.
It has never been about outright hostility to Europe as a continent or a desire to have no trade deals with them whatsoever.
That's just barmy.
Not hostility to the continent, of course, or bilateral deals between states. What I mean is that the Conservative Party seems to grow ever more vehemently opposed to the pan-European project, or at least to British participation in it in any form, and EEA/EFTA would surely be just the latest head of the Hydra.
Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If Leave wins it would be great consolation if we didn't hear any more of this issue for a couple of billion years.
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
So that they don't get fined many thousands of pounds, under legislation introduced by Labour.
I've registered with countless agencies online they don't ask for my NI details. It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with (being concerned with privacy) but since it's how the system works so be it. But asking for my NI number is a step too far. Funnily enough I recently got advice (from the civil service) never to put your NI number or bank details on your CV (as some people do).
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
To a certain extent, yes. But he is responsible for knowing when the projects - especially the big, important ones such as UC - are going wrong and act accordingly. And AIUI, it wasn't just the IT systems that are failing.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
If its anything like other IT projects I've worked on, the people working on the project will be screaming we need 6 more months while management is going. yep ready to go live next week...
In time honored fashion the "go live" date will have been agreed at board level before anyone actually working on the project had got a full set of requirements, never mind anything a detailed as a specification.
There will then have been an attempt to throw bodies at the project in the hope of making it go faster. Project managers will have made obligatory comments about nine women having a baby in a month, which will have cut no ice with the board.
Half way from the development the customer will have had a change of management, resulting in the new broom wanting to make their imprint on the project and a revised set of requirements will be issued.
Developers will be told to forget the documentation and testing and just cut new code. The system will hit production 3-6 months late, badly tested and undocumented.
Before it has even done a week live the dev team will be sacked because they are too expensive and the support for the badly tested, undocumented project will be outsourced to Bangalore.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
They sound a tad rattled. Interesting.
Pissed off than rattled.
I presume this is for the benefit of Tory Right MPs who read the thread headers?
With only one or two exceptions I think most of our regular Leave posters have been quite well behaved over the last few days.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV.
He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him.
Stop whinging and get campaigning.
That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
To a certain extent, yes. But he is responsible for knowing when the projects - especially the big, important ones such as UC - are going wrong and act accordingly. And AIUI, it wasn't just the IT systems that are failing.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
If its anything like other IT projects I've worked on, the people working on the project will be screaming we need 6 more months while management is going. yep ready to go live next week...
In time honored fashion the "go live" date will have been agreed at board level before anyone actually working on the project had got a full set of requirements, never mind anything a detailed as a specification.
There will then have been an attempt to throw bodies at the project in the hope of making it go faster. Project managers will have made obligatory comments about nine women having a baby in a month, which will have cut no ice with the board.
Half way from the development the customer will have had a change of management, resulting in the new broom wanting to make their imprint on the project and a revised set of requirements will be issued.
Developers will be told to forget the documentation and testing and just cut new code. The system will hit production 3-6 months late, badly tested and undocumented.
Before it has even done a week live the dev team will be sacked because they are too expensive and the support for the badly tested, undocumented project will be outsourced to Bangalore.
Where ihings will go from bad to worse. See the NHS IT project.
TSE regarding your friend who worked at CCHQ have they considered that in the recent exchange of correspondence betwen IDS and Cameron it was Cameron's letter that brought up the EU referendum. That was a very stupid act if the aim was not to talk about divisions on the EU.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
They sound a tad rattled. Interesting.
Pissed off than rattled.
I presume this is for the benefit of Tory Right MPs who read the thread headers?
With only one or two exceptions I think most of our regular Leave posters have been quite well behaved over the last few days.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
Interesting.. GO (no, not that one) have just emailed me to ask for my endorsement to aid their designation as the official Leave campaign to the electoral commission.
Think I'll be ignoring that one.
(But once again the organisation of Vote Leave is found wanting.. Where is their equivalent email?)
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I've registered with countless agencies online they don't ask for my NI details. It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with (being concerned with privacy) but since it's how the system works so be it. But asking for my NI number is a step too far. Funnily enough I recently got advice (from the civil service) never to put your NI number or bank details on your CV (as some people do).
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
So that they don't get fined many thousands of pounds, under legislation introduced by Labour.
I've registered with countless agencies online they don't ask for my NI details. It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with (being concerned with privacy) but since it's how the system works so be it. But asking for my NI number is a step too far. Funnily enough I recently got advice (from the civil service) never to put your NI number or bank details on your CV (as some people do).
Bank details seems an optimistic thing to put on one's CV.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s''
They sound a tad rattled. Interesting.
Pissed off than rattled.
Pissed off because not everyone wants to row in behind Dave and the Deal. Freedom of thought is such a pesky thing one people don't behave as they're supposed to.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
Really quite annoyed. Just tried applying for a civil service job which redirected me to Manpower's website, who want me to register (as usual) with details including my national insurance number. What could they possibly want that for? To sell on to somebody else?
So that they don't get fined many thousands of pounds, under legislation introduced by Labour.
If only it was legal for governments to change laws in this country.
Anyone else think that the Bangla's have a chance of successfully defending that 156? Aprreciate that they've got a 2nd string bwoling attack, but Oz looked fragile against the Kiwis and the Banglas should certainly be bowling with pace off the ball which looks like the right approach?
They will not be at each other's throats if Leave win.
ROFL The anti-immigration brigade will be crying "betrayal" before the ink is dry on the inevitable free movement of people deal. We will look back on the current 'infighting' as the halcyon days of party unity...
The anti-immigration brigade mainly vote for UKIP and Labour. Should I worry about party unity in Labour?
For Osborne to be replaced prior to the referendum would indicate a complete melt down at the heart of the government making the outcome of that referendum incredibly unpredictable. It is just not going to happen.
Assuming that the result of the referendum is Remain I think it is unlikely to happen either and I expect a lot of the current froth to have died down by then. If it hasn't moving in Gove would be a good reconciling gesture by Cameron although there is plenty of time for them to fall out as well by June.
If Leave wins then all bets are off although for the reasons I have expressed before I doubt very much that there would be immediate changes at the very top. It would just add to the considerable uncertainty that would exist. Appointing Gove with the express task of negotiating our departure would be a possibility.
Finally if Osborne outdoes Lazarus and takes the top job Gove looks a natural for his Chancellor.
Overall Gove looks the obvious bet but I suspect that anyone in this market will be waiting a lot longer than they currently think for their money.
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I'm no CCHQ lackey nor do I write propaganda.
I write what I like.
And you wonder where your peerage has got to?
For services to sartorial elegance?
For wearing turquoise and pink to Ilkley he deserves at least a gallantry medal with oakleaf.
Anyone else think that the Bangla's have a chance of successfully defending that 156? Aprreciate that they've got a 2nd string bwoling attack, but Oz looked fragile against the Kiwis and the Banglas should certainly be bowling with pace off the ball which looks like the right approach?
TBH, I think the Aussies have got to be favourites, although I’m surprised Warner’s not opening.
I've registered with countless agencies online they don't ask for my NI details. It's not something I'm entirely comfortable with (being concerned with privacy) but since it's how the system works so be it. But asking for my NI number is a step too far. Funnily enough I recently got advice (from the civil service) never to put your NI number or bank details on your CV (as some people do).
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I'm no CCHQ lackey nor do I write propaganda.
I write what I like.
And you wonder where your peerage has got to?
For services to sartorial elegance?
For wearing turquoise and pink to Ilkley he deserves at least a gallantry medal with oakleaf.
The first commenter is correct there. IDS isn't responsible for the UC IT systems (he knows nothing about them and probably couldn't care less). The real issue is in various levels of management who wouldn't know how to manage a project if it was a drinks do in a brewery..
To a certain extent, yes. But he is responsible for knowing when the projects - especially the big, important ones such as UC - are going wrong and act accordingly. And AIUI, it wasn't just the IT systems that are failing.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
If its anything like other IT projects I've worked on, the people working on the project will be screaming we need 6 more months while management is going. yep ready to go live next week...
In time honored fashion the "go live" date will have been agreed at board level before anyone actually working on the project had got a full set of requirements, never mind anything a detailed as a specification.
There will then have been an attempt to throw bodies at the project in the hope of making it go faster. Project managers will have made obligatory comments about nine women having a baby in a month, which will have cut no ice with the board.
Half way from the development the customer will have had a change of management, resulting in the new broom wanting to make their imprint on the project and a revised set of requirements will be issued.
Developers will be told to forget the documentation and testing and just cut new code. The system will hit production 3-6 months late, badly tested and undocumented.
Before it has even done a week live the dev team will be sacked because they are too expensive and the support for the badly tested, undocumented project will be outsourced to Bangalore.
Yep, been there done that for too often.... Let's just say I'm very careful with who I bank with and where my pension is...
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I'm no CCHQ lackey nor do I write propaganda.
I write what I like.
And you wonder where your peerage has got to?
They know giving me a peerage and I'd use that as a stepping stone to become the UK's first Directly Elected Dictator
I have a friend who worked at CCHQ and he's asked me a huge favour. I get the feeling this the thoughts of Matthew Parker Street.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
Did you point out that if that is what they want then they should ask Cameron to stop speaking about Europe every time he makes a speech and admonish Osborne for talking about the EU referendum in his recent budget. The evidence is that it is Cameron and Osborne that go on and on and on and on about Europe, the EU and the referendum whereas the smart move for party loyalty should be to just STFU, since banging on about it is regarded as a bad idea at CCHQ.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
You sound like the Lib Dems when Dave started campaigning against AV. He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him. Stop whinging and get campaigning. That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I thought you wanted to tone down the mentions of the EU in line with the CCHQ request?
I'm no CCHQ lackey nor do I write propaganda.
I write what I like.
And you wonder where your peerage has got to?
What I want to know is when will Jeremy Corbyn start appointing peers.
Comments
http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/03/iain-duncan-smith-quits-universal-credit/
"....number one best seller for translation into Innuit....."
However, I wouldn't say that out loud as it would probably make him more insufferable and cockier than he usually is....
But the implication of your post is, I think, right - the party will need to unite under a new leader. I think this will be much easier than it now looks, simply because the referendum result will be in. They'll be no point fighting old feuds when Cameron, and perhaps Osborne, will have moved on.
I like GO but he is now making too many mistakes and should go after the referendum.
I do agree with whoever said it, that the PM needs a Deputy. He is increasingly distracted by events abroad (this always happens to every PM) and consequently they take their eye off the ball domestically. I would suggest Graham Brady!
I meant in terms of the tone and debate within the party, although perhaps Summer 2005 isn't a great comparison either as at that stage the party were much more willing to hear the modernising message.
I half-agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think the EU is going to die as an issue in Conservative Party politics anytime soon.
Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all.
(The seemingly unreasonable reaction to FoA requests is also something that should ultimately be his responsibility)
I like the idea of UC, and support it. But the idea that a minister has nothing to do with a large project's success or failure is ridiculous if they have been in charge from the start.
Energies would be focussed on trade deals, regional policy, regaining UK control where it is currently the ECJ, spending the savings, and on agriculture/fisheries.
I accept Peter Bone and Philip Hollobone would have a different choice but the long-term boil of EU membership would have been lanced.
That is the same War on Want that actively supported the tyrannical Sandinista regime on her watch and throughout the 1980s, even going as far as to launch a “Nicaragua Must Survive” campaign backed by George Galloway at the height of the tyranny in 1985. Aside from their Nicaraguan antics they are well known for their anti-Israel campaigns that lead to a number of investigations by the Charities Commission. Nice to see that IPSA is continuing the great Parliamentary tradition of appointing left-wingers in supposedly neutral roles…
http://order-order.com/2016/03/21/ex-war-on-want-boss-recommended-as-ipsa-chair/
"Even I'm starting to get tired of it. It's yet another reason to Leave, just to end it all."
I've gone the other way. Why vote Leave and then have almighty disputes about what that means. There is no way you'll get a consensus on immigration policy or the long-term relationship with the single market. if they are at each others' throats now I dread to think what will happen after a Leave win.
Better for Remain to win handsomely and we forget about the next couple of months.
Conversely, the infighting and civil war will never end if we vote Remain.
TBH, I suspect therte’s an element of truth on both sides.
Sadly it is the grammatically gruesome "from the no1 bestselling author of"
3 figures
EDIT: Basically I am all talk so people should ignore me.
The anti-immigration brigade will be crying "betrayal" before the ink is dry on the inevitable free movement of people deal.
We will look back on the current 'infighting' as the halcyon days of party unity...
It has never been about outright hostility to Europe as a continent or a desire to have no trade deals with them whatsoever.
That's just barmy.
FPT: np, Mr. Labour. I usually have mine offline and use the 3G when online, so I would've missed this otherwise.
FPT: Mr. Urquhart, apologies for not replying at the time (I left right before you asked).
Unsure about Patreon for writers (both in terms of whether it's right, and whether it actually works financially). Episodic release is sort-of what happens anyway (that's what I'm going to try and promote when the trilogy comes out).
If possible, I'd prefer to stick to a hybrid approach (part traditionally published, part self-published). Self-publishing still has some stigma, but it also means you've got far more control over the schedule (ie no year long delays), pricing, cover and content, but traditional stuff is easier for marketing and you get more kudos.
Things like crowdfunding work very well for videogames or tech ideas, but I'm not sure they fit publishing.
I would say (as a general point, not just about my own stuff) if you like something, do review, rate, recommend it to your friends. Word of mouth can't be manufactured but it's incredibly useful for authors. It's also good for readers, because you find out about good books that would've otherwise been off your radar.
Btw, rein it in a bit, eh?
You are one of the worst behaved Remain posters on here.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak
Welfare cap has already been breached after all and it may well prove just impossible to achieve politically and practically
Think I'll be ignoring that one.
(But once again the organisation of Vote Leave is found wanting.. Where is their equivalent email?)
I think that's the individual cap.
This welfare cap is the % of GDP (or something) overall.
'Would be greatly appreciated if every PB thread you wrote between now and June 24th reminded the Eurosceptic right what happened in the 90s we started banging on about Europe and how IDS used to coordinate with Labour whips to help defeat the Government in the 90s'
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06852/SN06852.pdf
Hope you don't mind me being a nosy parker, but I'm curious how you've been getting on - have you had to lead the lifestyle of the starving writer, or have you been able to sustain yourself with the self-publishing while you're waiting/hoping for a publishing deal? Or, worst case, had to head back to "proper" work, at least on a part-time basis?
If I ever get around to it, I'd like to wind down some of my business activities at some point and convert some of the writing that I do for clients for the purposes of my job into writing for the purposes of making money directly from writing (completely different sphere to you, though!). For which self-publishing is one of the options, of course, but I really haven't got my head around the financial aspects of it, or how sustainable the self-publishing model is. My current thinking is somewhat sceptical that I could generate any more revenue out of it than I would be able to do so if I devoted my time to my business instead (which has somewhat discouraged me taking the plunge, though it's on the table as a serious possibility for lifestyle rather than financial reasons), but it's quite possible that the self-publishing world has evolved significantly since I last took a serious look at it a few years ago.
Perhaps to check you're entitled to work in this country?
Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If Leave wins it would be great consolation if we didn't hear any more of this issue for a couple of billion years.
There will then have been an attempt to throw bodies at the project in the hope of making it go faster. Project managers will have made obligatory comments about nine women having a baby in a month, which will have cut no ice with the board.
Half way from the development the customer will have had a change of management, resulting in the new broom wanting to make their imprint on the project and a revised set of requirements will be issued.
Developers will be told to forget the documentation and testing and just cut new code. The system will hit production 3-6 months late, badly tested and undocumented.
Before it has even done a week live the dev team will be sacked because they are too expensive and the support for the badly tested, undocumented project will be outsourced to Bangalore.
Or is it one rule for one side and another rule for the other?
With only one or two exceptions I think most of our regular Leave posters have been quite well behaved over the last few days.
He's suspended collective responsibility so people can oppose him.
Stop whinging and get campaigning.
That tweet above by Dan Hodges (pbuh) is a fair analysis.
I write what I like.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-intermediaries-reporting-requirements/what-this-means-for-an-intermediary
Freedom of thought is such a pesky thing one people don't behave as they're supposed to.
Assuming that the result of the referendum is Remain I think it is unlikely to happen either and I expect a lot of the current froth to have died down by then. If it hasn't moving in Gove would be a good reconciling gesture by Cameron although there is plenty of time for them to fall out as well by June.
If Leave wins then all bets are off although for the reasons I have expressed before I doubt very much that there would be immediate changes at the very top. It would just add to the considerable uncertainty that would exist. Appointing Gove with the express task of negotiating our departure would be a possibility.
Finally if Osborne outdoes Lazarus and takes the top job Gove looks a natural for his Chancellor.
Overall Gove looks the obvious bet but I suspect that anyone in this market will be waiting a lot longer than they currently think for their money.
LaCCHQy.
Mind you its Hays so nothing would surprise me...
The underlying rules and system are pretty complex, and the politicians change those rules at the drop of a hat, or a bad press story.
Trying to combine multiple benefits whilst incorporating real-time wage reporting is largely 'asking for it'.
Graph at the bottom:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12197237/The-case-for-change-on-disability-benefits.html