Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
2015 tory votes 11.3
2017 tory votes 13.6
And you call me tedious!
Your childlike sycophancy is embarrassing mate, outside of your echo chamber Osborne is held in contempt.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I lost betting on Tory majority over 150. But more than made it back this time because of some shrewd seat-specific Labour win/hold tips I picked up on here.
Previously I lost the most I've ever lost on Trump, made a small profit on Brexit and a largeish loss on 2015.
Overall still down thanks to Donald. If he decides to quit this year I will be furious.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I was up £900 thanks mostly to the Tory gains in Scotland and Labour wins such as Wirral South (7-1), Ynys Mon (12-1), Sheffield Hallam (25-1). I did lose some Tory bets (though I was close with Ashfield), but thankfully I didn't get carried away with the Tories at the start of the campaign.
I should really see what would have happened on a uniform swing from Labour to the Tories. I think I'd have still been up a fair amount with the Tories 10 points clear.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
2015 tory votes 11.3
2017 tory votes 13.6
And you call me tedious!
Your childlike sycophancy is embarrassing mate, outside of your echo chamber Osborne is held in contempt.
People like Helmer wonder why UKIP are called fruitcakes
It's such a bizarre thing to get so worked up about for one thing - there are characters it could be argued being a man is pretty central to the core of the character, but despite some heterosexual romancing in recent years IIRC, I cannot say I've ever thought the gender was a key part of being The Doctor.
On making money at the GE, I haven't tallied exactly, but due to only betting small amounts I came a lot closer to breaking even than I would have thought, so only minor losses - the majority of my bets were losses, but I had a reasonable number of SCON wins, and had a fiver on Labour to win Bristol West at a ludicrous 4-1 or there About. I know the Greens seemed keen, but that always looked like a very easy Labour hold. So thanks to Scotland and that Bristol win, all those speculative Tory constituency wins didn't prove too damaging in th end.
More Stargate/Lib Dem nonsense: the enemies of the Goa'uld[sp] are the Tauri[sp] (humans of Earth). The enemies of the Lib Dems are the Tories. Coincidence?
Yep Musk has decided this too. Dragon 2 goal is human rated. Propulsive landing would be an additional complication so it is sensible to ditch it and focus that effort towards ITS development
I fear it's a bit more complex than that. SpacX have been working on propulsive landing of their Dragon 2 capsule for years now, and developed rocket motors to do it. This gave them the option of landing a capsule on land (unlike all other US capsules at sea), which is much cheaper - you don't need loads of ships at sea to pick it up.
Firstly, NASA wanted backup parachutes. This added weight. Secondly, they've nixed the propulsive landings by saying they wanted the heat shield unbroken by rocket motors or landing legs - understandable after Challenger.
This left propulsive landings for just cargo Dragon 2's, and it would not be worth doing it for just that. This also nixed Red Dragon, which was to use that technology, and would have been useful to provide data for atmospheric re-entries of heavy bodies on Mars.
SpaceX wanted propulsive landings for many reasons: it's cheaper, it reduces reliance on the US government (the ships at sea), and it's more flexible. NASA didn't want it for all those reasons, and they're the paymaster.
In a day of generally bad news for SpaceX, Musk also cast some doubt on the likelihood of the Falcon Heavy's first flight succeeding.
Thanks all. Very interesting and educational.
That's one of the best things about this site, lots of thought-provoking content.
More Stargate/Lib Dem nonsense: the enemies of the Goa'uld[sp] are the Tauri[sp] (humans of Earth). The enemies of the Lib Dems are the Tories. Coincidence?
It's so obvious in retrospect. And the Goa-uld are parasites of course.
It falls down as we (the Tauri) secretly spent so much on our defence budget we were able to operate military operations intergalacticallywithin 10 years without anyone on earth knowing, while Tories cut the military of course.
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
I see that grade inflation has hit the university sector.
Indeed, though as with schools, it might not just be the exams getting easier: there have long been reports that many of today's students have a much tighter focus on exams, rather than sitting under trees reading all day and getting hammered in the student union bar at night. A look at any academic bookshop will find shelves full of "how to study" guides. Maybe paying £9,000 a year concentrates the mind.
Students don't pay tuition fees.
There is an extra tax on their salary once they start to earn above a salary floor.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
You yourself wrote an article saying don't underestimate him didn't you? If so I don't think you can use him being a weak opponent as criticism without being logically inconsistent
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
He's good in a campaign, and May wasn't, hence why plenty were not expecting a landslide, but he does have a great deal of baggage (so much so that 3/4 of his MPs said he wasn't up to the job, which is hilarious after what happened) which most would have expected to have a greater impact.
If May is replaced, her successor will be under immense pressure to call an election. They will be constantly asked whether they will call one or not. If they say no, they will be seen as being afraid of losing it. To be seen as having no confidence in your party's ability to win an election would basically be seen as giving up. You can try and say that "now is not the time because we need strong and stable etc" but that simply calls into question the decision to previously call an election, something that was at the time defended by all Tory MPs. Either way there is little choice but to call an early election with a new leader - an 'unelected' PM of an unpopular minority government is a recipe for disaster.
No doubt almost all non-contender MPs want May to stay at this point. But most contenders are going to get restless soon, particularly Davis, and once someone launches a challenge, the damage to May will be done. Even winning a vote would still weaken her further.
So, MPs are above all going to want an election winner - if there is a contest I think Boris will become the brexiteers choice of candidate, over Davis, and would win in a membership ballot against Hammond/Rudd etc.
No idea whether he would beat Corbyn or not in an early election, but I think he has the best shot of doing it out of all candidates.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Given that the SPIN LAB opening spread was 151-157 a by then must have been the best bet of GE17. They ended up with 262.
The top CON sell price was 401. I got in, as I recorded at the time at 393 and that finished at 318.
One of the best seat bets was Alistair Meeks tip of the 5/2 on LAB holding Hove which they did with a staggering 18,757 majority. To think that the Tories were tights odds-on favourite
I lost in three LAB-LD contests & Fife NE, but won on the other LD Scottish gains,
My best seat outcome was Oxford W & A where I used to live and where my shortest odds were 3/1.
I didn't bet on LAB in my own Bedford seat even though you could gave got longer than 6/1 on the day beforehand. This was a LAB gain.
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
There is a lot to be said for a five year limit on how long any one person can do the job.
I prefer lack of limits in this country, since to stay at the top a long time requires a great deal of skill and if you can manage it, we are not in danger of becoming dictatorial, so they should be able to do it. And of course parties self correct on these things, eventually.
Mr. B2, jein. If Aurelian had been emperor for two decades instead of five years the Empire would've been far better off. An interesting consequence would've been if it had never become Christian as a result. That might see Islam never arise and a much smaller number of Christians in the world today.
It's also possible the Empire could still exist. That might sound fanciful, but it only fell in the 15th century.
I'll admit to not watching Dr Who regularly since the 1960s, and hardly at all since the early 70s. As for Dr Who, William Hartnell was the best.
But it is a children's programme. The Daleks would be frightening if you're a seven-year-old. I can see the snowflake generation might worry about it, but as kiddies are the demographic, women are the logical choice for the lead.
I may not be totally serious, but the Star Wars franchise is also in the 'Finding Nemo' and 'Frozen' category. None are for adults. I've asked before, but how can light sabres be a serious weapon, An AK47 would do the job far more efficiently.
Yep Musk has decided this too. Dragon 2 goal is human rated. Propulsive landing would be an additional complication so it is sensible to ditch it and focus that effort towards ITS development
I fear it's a bit more complex than that. SpacX have been working on propulsive landing of their Dragon 2 capsule for years now, and developed rocket motors to do it. This gave them the option of landing a capsule on land (unlike all other US capsules at sea), which is much cheaper - you don't need loads of ships at sea to pick it up.
Firstly, NASA wanted backup parachutes. This added weight. Secondly, they've nixed the propulsive landings by saying they wanted the heat shield unbroken by rocket motors or landing legs - understandable after Challenger.
This left propulsive landings for just cargo Dragon 2's, and it would not be worth doing it for just that. This also nixed Red Dragon, which was to use that technology, and would have been useful to provide data for atmospheric re-entries of heavy bodies on Mars.
SpaceX wanted propulsive landings for many reasons: it's cheaper, it reduces reliance on the US government (the ships at sea), and it's more flexible. NASA didn't want it for all those reasons, and they're the paymaster.
In a day of generally bad news for SpaceX, Musk also cast some doubt on the likelihood of the Falcon Heavy's first flight succeeding.
Thanks all. Very interesting and educational.
That's one of the best things about this site, lots of thought-provoking content.
Thanks, though I said 'Challenger' rather than 'Colombia', so I'm obviously utterly wrong on all the other points.
One of the funnier things about this is the fanbois' reaction. Musk has spent ages saying 'Mars rather than Moon', and his fans denigrated anyone (especially Bezos) who said we need to go to the Moon. Last night Musk talked about going to the Moon, and even mentioned Moonbases, and the fanbois are suddenly hailing going to the Moon as the ideal stepping stone to Mars.
Musk is still clearly looking for stage 2 between 'collect underpants' and 'profit' in his Mars plan. I hope he finds it.
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
Wasn't there a suspicion it was was her (subsequently evident) alzheimers making it's presence felt?
I was never a fan of the woman (quite the opposite) but I wouldn't wish alzheimers on anyone. Fortunately, our parliamentary system does provide some checks against the potential issues of a PM going completely off the rails.
As the recession’s grip held firm at the beginning of 1981, unemployment neared 3m, manufacturing capacity fell by fifth, and the lifeblood of the British mining community ebbed away. Discontent was rife, and culminated in urban riots in the summer of that year.
Thatcher was brutal. May is rubbish. Big difference.
"Thatcher was brutal."
Was she really, or is that just your politics skewing your perception?
She actually played her politics pretty well from 1979-1986.
It was after 1987 that she got very cocky, which led to her downfall. Arguably the nascent EU was the catalyst, and the reaction to the poll tax the biggest trigger.
"We are a grandmother" set warning bells ringing.....but people writing of Green as "dull & boring" should recall the last Conservative leader that was said of...
Which Oxford college were you at? I assume you knew JohnO who was at Balliol during the same period.
I imagine Carlotta was rather more of an Oxford Union person than me, but I guess our paths may have crossed. Damian and I were tutorial partners for, wait for it, Modern British Government with the bubbly, effervescent Gillian Peele. Blimey, summer of 76 and all that!!
Anyways, back to day. Post conference Mrs M needs to start acting like a Prime Minister. She should sack Johnson (or offer him Leader of the House in place of Leadsom) and shift Jeremy Hunt to FCO. And promote Esther McVeigh to Health (she would already have been in the Cabinet had she not lost in 2015).
At a stroke, you create two credible, viable and electable successors.
Oh, and make Ruth Davidson party chairman in place of the hapless McLoughlin.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I won a decent amount on this GE purely through a big bet on Lib Dems under 19 seats. In the early stages of the campaign the odds reflected the media narrative that the Lib Dems were going to sweep the 48%, so betting against that was the way to go. I also got lucky on a free bet on Yns Mons staying Labour thanks to a tip from someone on here. Other than that every single one of my Tory and Labour bets were losers, I just bet much smaller on those ones.
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
There is a lot to be said for a five year limit on how long any one person can do the job.
I prefer lack of limits in this country, since to stay at the top a long time requires a great deal of skill and if you can manage it, we are not in danger of becoming dictatorial, so they should be able to do it. And of course parties self correct on these things, eventually.
Agreed, it's not as if we are awash with political leadership talent. If we find someone half decent they ought to have the chance to carry on for a long as the public (and thier party) wants them.
Look at the US... If Obama had been allowed (and willing) to go for a 3rd term, Trump would still be an amusing TV celeb.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
He's good in a campaign, and May wasn't, hence why plenty were not expecting a landslide, but he does have a great deal of baggage (so much so that 3/4 of his MPs said he wasn't up to the job, which is hilarious after what happened) which most would have expected to have a greater impact.
Yes, so now we know he isn't crap, and is actually extremely popular in some age groups and demographics, using his presence as the oppo as a measure of May's crapness is stupid. He certainly motivates people more than the two labour leaders whom Cameron defeated. Would you say Brown or Miliband will go down in history as better than him?
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
He's good in a campaign, and May wasn't, hence why plenty were not expecting a landslide, but he does have a great deal of baggage (so much so that 3/4 of his MPs said he wasn't up to the job, which is hilarious after what happened) which most would have expected to have a greater impact.
Yes, so now we know he isn't crap, and is actually extremely popular in some age groups and demographics, using his presence as the oppo as a measure of May's crapness is stupid. He certainly motivates people more than the two labour leaders whom Cameron defeated. Would you say Brown or Miliband will go down in history as better than him?
I'll admit to not watching Dr Who regularly since the 1960s, and hardly at all since the early 70s. As for Dr Who, William Hartnell was the best.
But it is a children's programme. The Daleks would be frightening if you're a seven-year-old. I can see the snowflake generation might worry about it, but as kiddies are the demographic, women are the logical choice for the lead.
I may not be totally serious, but the Star Wars franchise is also in the 'Finding Nemo' and 'Frozen' category. None are for adults. I've asked before, but how can light sabres be a serious weapon, An AK47 would do the job far more efficiently.
Of course they cannot be a serious weapon - even assuming Jedi can react far faster than a a human it makes no sense. But given all the death and destruction, (which outside of a cartoon is more of an adult thing) it's more a 'fun for all the family' thing than purely a kids thing. This is provably the case, as you cannot make that much money on purely going after the kids demographic (nor can you win elections solely with the youngish or solely with the old, relatedly), you need that sweet spot where adults can enjoy it but still take the kids if they want.
Lord, Thatcher really was bat shit crazy during her final months as PM
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
Wasn't there a suspicion it was was her (subsequently evident) alzheimers making it's presence felt?
I was never a fan of the woman (quite the opposite) but I wouldn't wish alzheimers on anyone. Fortunately, our parliamentary system does provide some checks against the potential issues of a PM going completely off the rails.
Probably. It was said the Labour leadership thought Mrs Thatcher was losing her marbles, though with Harold Wilson having resigned when he felt his mind failing, perhaps they were more attuned to it.
First, welcome to Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader.
He's not the first ex-SDP man to lead the party but as I don't think Charles Kennedy ever supported Labour, he's a first in that regard. For those who say Vince would look more kindly on Labour than the Conservatives, I think there are some Labour Parties for which that would be true and Jeremy Corbyn's isn't one of them.
Apart from the obvious fact that with 12 MPs and 5-7% of the vote in polls, the Party is hardly basking in the sunlit uplands of popularity and relevance, Vince's greatest challenge for me is articulating a credible Brexit message for the Party. Simply saying "we want to stay in the EU" hasn't got us very far and why would it ?
The elephant in the room remains immigration and the incontrovertible logic that it should be the British Government who decides who has the right to enter and reside in the UK is something the LDs need to get past. A transparent and fair system of migration and residency applicable to all non-UK people would be a good start in my view. No one questions that in areas where people are needed (specialist and highly skilled trades) we should be actively encouraging people to come here to learn and/or to settle but, and I'll pick my words carefully, we shouldn't be a country of choice for those seeking an easy life based on criminality and/or other fraudulent activities.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a constructive political and economic relationship with the EU and there will no doubt be many areas where we can and indeed should work with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we should be seeking similar relationships elsewhere in the world and moving beyond our "comfort zone" and dealing with nations whose economic and political cultures may be very different to ours but with whom we should be building strong relationships for the decades to come.
A leading Brexiter at the top of the government refused to back one of the UK’s position papers for this week’s exit talks in Brussels, in a sign of Britain’s deep ideological divisions at the highest levels of power.
According to two separate sources, Michael Gove, environment secretary, would not back the paper on the future of cases pending at the European Court of Justice when Brexit concludes at the end of March 2019.
The position paper on the future role of the ECJ was one of a batch of three that the UK government published on July 13 in preparation for this week’s Brexit negotiations.
The paper makes it clear that some UK cases would be under way before the ECJ at the time of Brexit and that it would be necessary for some to continue to work their way through the court.
First, welcome to Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader.
He's not the first ex-SDP man to lead the party but as I don't think Charles Kennedy ever supported Labour, he's a first in that regard. For those who say Vince would look more kindly on Labour than the Conservatives, I think there are some Labour Parties for which that would be true and Jeremy Corbyn's isn't one of them.
Apart from the obvious fact that with 12 MPs and 5-7% of the vote in polls, the Party is hardly basking in the sunlit uplands of popularity and relevance, Vince's greatest challenge for me is articulating a credible Brexit message for the Party. Simply saying "we want to stay in the EU" hasn't got us very far and why would it ?
The elephant in the room remains immigration and the incontrovertible logic that it should be the British Government who decides who has the right to enter and reside in the UK is something the LDs need to get past. A transparent and fair system of migration and residency applicable to all non-UK people would be a good start in my view. No one questions that in areas where people are needed (specialist and highly skilled trades) we should be actively encouraging people to come here to learn and/or to settle but, and I'll pick my words carefully, we shouldn't be a country of choice for those seeking an easy life based on criminality and/or other fraudulent activities.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a constructive political and economic relationship with the EU and there will no doubt be many areas where we can and indeed should work with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we should be seeking similar relationships elsewhere in the world and moving beyond our "comfort zone" and dealing with nations whose economic and political cultures may be very different to ours but with whom we should be building strong relationships for the decades to come.
Mr. Eagles, as you may recall, I am not boundless in my praise for the ECJ (indeed, the term could be preceded by 'delenda est'), but letting matters currently going through it continue doesn't look like a line in the sand over which to die, to me.
Gove's only just back in Cabinet. This is an opportunity for May. Sack him, and she looks rather stronger.
But, if she did and Boris resigned to mount a leadership challenge... it could still work in her favour.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Good for you, I've no reason to doubt you.
Noted with thanks, Free.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
As the recession’s grip held firm at the beginning of 1981, unemployment neared 3m, manufacturing capacity fell by fifth, and the lifeblood of the British mining community ebbed away. Discontent was rife, and culminated in urban riots in the summer of that year.
Thatcher was brutal. May is rubbish. Big difference.
"Thatcher was brutal."
Was she really, or is that just your politics skewing your perception?
She actually played her politics pretty well from 1979-1986.
It was after 1987 that she got very cocky, which led to her downfall. Arguably the nascent EU was the catalyst, and the reaction to the poll tax the biggest trigger.
"We are a grandmother" set warning bells ringing.....but people writing of Green as "dull & boring" should recall the last Conservative leader that was said of...
Which Oxford college were you at? I assume you knew JohnO who was at Balliol during the same period.
I imagine Carlotta was rather more of an Oxford Union person than me, but I guess our paths may have crossed. Damian and I were tutorial partners for, wait for it, Modern British Government with the bubbly, effervescent Gillian Peele. Blimey, summer of 76 and all that!!
Anyways, back to day. Post conference Mrs M needs to start acting like a Prime Minister. She should sack Johnson (or offer him Leader of the House in place of Leadsom) and shift Jeremy Hunt to FCO. And promote Esther McVeigh to Health (she would already have been in the Cabinet had she not lost in 2015).
At a stroke, you create two credible, viable and electable successors.
Oh, and make Ruth Davidson party chairman in place of the hapless McLoughlin.
Jeremy Hunt is 66/1 generally for next PM and 100/1 in a place for next leader. I've backed Hunt even though I think he has been a poor Health Secretary. He stood up to the junior doctors, which will appeal to Conservative MPs and members in the same way Gove insulting teachers and Theresa May the Police Federation. This means Hunt can be elected leader, and therefore PM, even though lengthening waiting lists means Corbyn's team will be measuring up the curtains.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
If the problem with free movement in practice is the relative lack of economic development in eastern Europe, perhaps the answer is to redeploy some of our considerable international development budget towards ending that disparity.
You're probably right about Star Wars, but I prefer my sci-fi to be a little darker. More like GoT. I'd have had Luke Skywalker beheaded early on for being a snowflake.
I liked the first 'Alien' much better than the sequels.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
If the problem with free movement in practice is the relative lack of economic development in eastern Europe, perhaps the answer is to redeploy some of our considerable international development budget towards ending that disparity.
I think you'll find a good deal of our wealth, including tax payers money in the form of child benefit and tax credit, is already doing that...
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
If the problem with free movement in practice is the relative lack of economic development in eastern Europe, perhaps the answer is to redeploy some of our considerable international development budget towards ending that disparity.
I think you'll find a good deal of our wealth, including tax payers money in the form of child benefit and tax credit, is already doing that...
Then it should be an easy sell. Employ them there instead of paying them tax credits here. What's not to like for a Brexiteer concerned about the economic impact on low-wage Brits?
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
He's good in a campaign, and May wasn't, hence why plenty were not expecting a landslide, but he does have a great deal of baggage (so much so that 3/4 of his MPs said he wasn't up to the job, which is hilarious after what happened) which most would have expected to have a greater impact.
Yes, so now we know he isn't crap, and is actually extremely popular in some age groups and demographics, using his presence as the oppo as a measure of May's crapness is stupid. He certainly motivates people more than the two labour leaders whom Cameron defeated. Would you say Brown or Miliband will go down in history as better than him?
Hard to say with Brown as it depends if Corbyn gets a chance to be PM, as I don't think it fair to judge them directly. Better thanMiliband? Well, he outperformed him, so no, he Miliband will not go down as better than Corbyn as a leader, though I remain confident Miliband would be a better PM than Corbyn would/will be.
A leading Brexiter at the top of the government refused to back one of the UK’s position papers for this week’s exit talks in Brussels, in a sign of Britain’s deep ideological divisions at the highest levels of power.
According to two separate sources, Michael Gove, environment secretary, would not back the paper on the future of cases pending at the European Court of Justice when Brexit concludes at the end of March 2019.
The position paper on the future role of the ECJ was one of a batch of three that the UK government published on July 13 in preparation for this week’s Brexit negotiations.
The paper makes it clear that some UK cases would be under way before the ECJ at the time of Brexit and that it would be necessary for some to continue to work their way through the court.
Ideological extremists are the cause of so much bloody trouble. They can occasionally inspire great things, to be sure, but go damn on a day to day practical basis it is infuriating.
I'll admit to not watching Dr Who regularly since the 1960s, and hardly at all since the early 70s. As for Dr Who, William Hartnell was the best.
But it is a children's programme. The Daleks would be frightening if you're a seven-year-old. I can see the snowflake generation might worry about it, but as kiddies are the demographic, women are the logical choice for the lead.
I may not be totally serious, but the Star Wars franchise is also in the 'Finding Nemo' and 'Frozen' category. None are for adults. I've asked before, but how can light sabres be a serious weapon, An AK47 would do the job far more efficiently.
I'll confess - I was behind the sofa in the late 60s but it was the Cybermen rather than the Daleks. I don't remember the Daleks so much in the Troughton era which was when I started watching.
As I said last Sunday, I don't care about the gender of the Doctor - what I do care about is the quality of the writing and acting. I thought Capaldi's speech to the Master and Missy in the finale was epic and showed him at his best.
They have different writers and I'll admit as with any show there are patchier episodes (NCIS doesn't always get it right either) but Chris Chibnall deserves a chance and has his lead (or muse). I suspect there'll be a bit less action hero and a bit more psychological drama and that does run a risk of alienating a key demographic who like the action.
I was afraid if Kris Marshall got the part, it would be a Peter Davison Mark 2 with a bit of Pertwee and Baker thrown in. Finding original nuances and personae to the character becomes more difficult with each regeneration.
As the recession’s grip held firm at the beginning of 1981, unemployment neared 3m, manufacturing capacity fell by fifth, and the lifeblood of the British mining community ebbed away. Discontent was rife, and culminated in urban riots in the summer of that year.
Thatcher was brutal. May is rubbish. Big difference.
"Thatcher was brutal."
Was she really, or is that just your politics skewing your perception?
She actually played her politics pretty well from 1979-1986.
It was after 1987 that she got very cocky, which led to her downfall. Arguably the nascent EU was the catalyst, and the reaction to the poll tax the biggest trigger.
"We are a grandmother" set warning bells ringing.....but people writing of Green as "dull & boring" should recall the last Conservative leader that was said of...
Which Oxford college were you at? I assume you knew JohnO who was at Balliol during the same period.
I imagine Carlotta was rather more of an Oxford Union person than me, but I guess our paths may have crossed. Damian and I were tutorial partners for, wait for it, Modern British Government with the bubbly, effervescent Gillian Peele. Blimey, summer of 76 and all that!!
Anyways, back to day. Post conference Mrs M needs to start acting like a Prime Minister. She should sack Johnson (or offer him Leader of the House in place of Leadsom) and shift Jeremy Hunt to FCO. And promote Esther McVeigh to Health (she would already have been in the Cabinet had she not lost in 2015).
At a stroke, you create two credible, viable and electable successors.
Oh, and make Ruth Davidson party chairman in place of the hapless McLoughlin.
Jeremy Hunt is 66/1 generally for next PM and 100/1 in a place for next leader. I've backed Hunt even though I think he has been a poor Health Secretary. He stood up to the junior doctors, which will appeal to Conservative MPs and members in the same way Gove insulting teachers and Theresa May the Police Federation. This means Hunt can be elected leader, and therefore PM, even though lengthening waiting lists means Corbyn's team will be measuring up the curtains.
I have backed Hunt. If he took the prize, which is clearly a longshot, then I would be in for a hefty pay day!.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I won a decent amount on this GE purely through a big bet on Lib Dems under 19 seats. In the early stages of the campaign the odds reflected the media narrative that the Lib Dems were going to sweep the 48%, so betting against that was the way to go. I also got lucky on a free bet on Yns Mons staying Labour thanks to a tip from someone on here. Other than that every single one of my Tory and Labour bets were losers, I just bet much smaller on those ones.
I won money on the GE (and I'll happily own that my win/loss record is patchy at best), as this time around the only bets I made were primarily on a Conservative minority govt. (which I posted here several times before close of polls) and a smaller back and lay on a Labour minority govt in the few hours after the close of polls, as a hedge while waiting for results, which I didn't bother posting.
More Stargate/Lib Dem nonsense: the enemies of the Goa'uld[sp] are the Tauri[sp] (humans of Earth). The enemies of the Lib Dems are the Tories. Coincidence?
It's so obvious in retrospect. And the Goa-uld are parasites of course.
It falls down as we (the Tauri) secretly spent so much on our defence budget we were able to operate military operations intergalacticallywithin 10 years without anyone on earth knowing, while Tories cut the military of course.
The Tories have not cut military spending. It is actually being diverted to the UK Interstellar Rapid Reaction Force based in Belize. That's where the Overseas Aid Budget is being shifted to too.
An early attempt to introduce this to the public was made last year with an appeal for funds. MI5 tried writing "Let's give £350m a week to fight the Goa'uld" on the side of a bus but Boris Johnson had second thoughts and vetoed the plan at the last minute. The wording on the bus was quickly painted over to make it harmless and unnoticed.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Good for you, I've no reason to doubt you.
Noted with thanks, Free.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
I lost money in GE 2017 and I fessed up at the time. Stemmed some rather dramatic losses by a hedge bet on NOM a few days before the vote, as I got a feeling something wasn't right.
First, welcome to Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader.
He's not the first ex-SDP man to lead the party but as I don't think Charles Kennedy ever supported Labour, he's a first in that regard. For those who say Vince would look more kindly on Labour than the Conservatives, I think there are some Labour Parties for which that would be true and Jeremy Corbyn's isn't one of them.
Apart from the obvious fact that with 12 MPs and 5-7% of the vote in polls, the Party is hardly basking in the sunlit uplands of popularity and relevance, Vince's greatest challenge for me is articulating a credible Brexit message for the Party. Simply saying "we want to stay in the EU" hasn't got us very far and why would it ?
The elephant in the room remains immigration and the incontrovertible logic that it should be the British Government who decides who has the right to enter and reside in the UK is something the LDs need to get past. A transparent and fair system of migration and residency applicable to all non-UK people would be a good start in my view. No one questions that in areas where people are needed (specialist and highly skilled trades) we should be actively encouraging people to come here to learn and/or to settle but, and I'll pick my words carefully, we shouldn't be a country of choice for those seeking an easy life based on criminality and/or other fraudulent activities.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a constructive political and economic relationship with the EU and there will no doubt be many areas where we can and indeed should work with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we should be seeking similar relationships elsewhere in the world and moving beyond our "comfort zone" and dealing with nations whose economic and political cultures may be very different to ours but with whom we should be building strong relationships for the decades to come.
He's not leader until 4pm today. There's still time :-)
Seriously though, I think he'll make a reasonable job of it. Plenty of experience and so on. He'll get a bit more coverage because of the sense that he has something worthy to say.
Thatcher was brutal. May is rubbish. Big difference.
"Thatcher was brutal."
Was she really, or is that just your politics skewing your perception?
She actually played her politics pretty well from 1979-1986.
It was after 1987 that she got very cocky, which led to her downfall. Arguably the nascent EU was the catalyst, and the reaction to the poll tax the biggest trigger.
"We are a grandmother" set warning bells ringing.....but people writing of Green as "dull & boring" should recall the last Conservative leader that was said of...
Which Oxford college were you at? I assume you knew JohnO who was at Balliol during the same period.
I imagine Carlotta was rather more of an Oxford Union person than me, but I guess our paths may have crossed. Damian and I were tutorial partners for, wait for it, Modern British Government with the bubbly, effervescent Gillian Peele. Blimey, summer of 76 and all that!!
Anyways, back to day. Post conference Mrs M needs to start acting like a Prime Minister. She should sack Johnson (or offer him Leader of the House in place of Leadsom) and shift Jeremy Hunt to FCO. And promote Esther McVeigh to Health (she would already have been in the Cabinet had she not lost in 2015).
At a stroke, you create two credible, viable and electable successors.
Oh, and make Ruth Davidson party chairman in place of the hapless McLoughlin.
Jeremy Hunt is 66/1 generally for next PM and 100/1 in a place for next leader. I've backed Hunt even though I think he has been a poor Health Secretary. He stood up to the junior doctors, which will appeal to Conservative MPs and members in the same way Gove insulting teachers and Theresa May the Police Federation. This means Hunt can be elected leader, and therefore PM, even though lengthening waiting lists means Corbyn's team will be measuring up the curtains.
I have backed Hunt. If he took the prize, which is clearly a longshot, then I would be in for a hefty pay day!.
Hunt is available at 50.
What are the odds of him coming out alive if he has to go into an A&E with an ingrowing toenail?
First, welcome to Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader.
He's not the first ex-SDP man to lead the party but as I don't think Charles Kennedy ever supported Labour, he's a first in that regard. For those who say Vince would look more kindly on Labour than the Conservatives, I think there are some Labour Parties for which that would be true and Jeremy Corbyn's isn't one of them.
.
Does Bob Maclennan count? I met him once. I was his minder for a day at the Winchester by election. He seemed really nice and appeared completely unsuited to an sort of political confrontation.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
If the problem with free movement in practice is the relative lack of economic development in eastern Europe, perhaps the answer is to redeploy some of our considerable international development budget towards ending that disparity.
I think you'll find a good deal of our wealth, including tax payers money in the form of child benefit and tax credit, is already doing that...
Then it should be an easy sell. Employ them there instead of paying them tax credits here. What's not to like for a Brexiteer concerned about the economic impact on low-wage Brits?
No. it would be a very difficult sell. Because every pound given in tax credits or child benefits to non natives is a pound that natives consider taken from them by the very people competing with them in the jobs market and for scarce public services and housing.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Good for you, I've no reason to doubt you.
Noted with thanks, Free.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
I made money on GE17, worship me!
BUT the net gain was about £25, and as it was my first serious venture into betting there were lots of free bets in the mix, some used up on boring seat number/% of vote bets which came good, and SCON and Wirral S got me over the line. Exciting stuff, but probably back to the sidelines in future.
Does Bob Maclennan count? I met him once. I was his minder for a day at the Winchester by election. He seemed really nice and appeared completely unsuited to an sort of political confrontation.
MacLennan took over the SDP after Owen and his band walked out and led that party through the merger talks with David Steel leading to the formation of the new party after which (presumably) his SDP ceased to exist as did the Liberal Party (though parties calling themselves Liberal and SDP still exist I believe).
Steel and MacLennan served as Joint Interim Leaders until Ashdown was elected in July 1988.
If we count MacLennan we'd have to say this is Vince's second go at leading the party (and second time he has led without a contested election which puts him one in front of Theresa May).
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Good for you, I've no reason to doubt you.
Noted with thanks, Free.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
My constituency bets were OK. Brecon and Radnor stayed Tory @ 1.25 as I said it would. Other tips on here - thanks - and my own predictions mostly went the right way.
But ... chortle chortle ... PB seemed to be convinced for days on end that a Tory overall majority was 'free money' @ 1.20. AFAIK it wasn't just Tories. By taking that advice seriously, I put too much money on it and made a net loss on my non-constituency bets.
I bet more but made a worse return than in either 2015 or 2010.
Don't worry about it. The Beeb is going to source its in house program making through its own independent production company BBC Studios, so you probably won't be able to see any of his salary next year.
Which also conveniently allows Corbyn to posture on the issue without having actually to do anything should he get into government...
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I made about £1.5k. Since it was almost all on buying Labour Seats I could show you my SPIN account if you like, although I'd like to think you'd trust me not to lie.
For balance, I should add that I lost £4k on the 2015 GE. That was much more complicated, as well as more painful, but I could send you some spreadsheets on which the disaster was recorded.
PS I think OGH also won on the spreads. He's not a Holy Friar either, so ask him.
Good for you, I've no reason to doubt you.
Noted with thanks, Free.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
My constituency bets were OK. Brecon and Radnor stayed Tory @ 1.25 as I said it would. Other tips on here - thanks - and my own predictions mostly went the right way.
But ... chortle chortle ... PB seemed to be convinced for days on end that a Tory overall majority was 'free money' @ 1.20. AFAIK it wasn't just Tories. By taking that advice seriously, I put too much money on it and made a net loss on my non-constituency bets.
I bet more but made a worse return than in either 2015 or 2010.
Ended up down about £370; luckily a few savers such as Labour won Leeds NW helped me out. If Olney had won RP I'd have been up about £230...
Does Bob Maclennan count? I met him once. I was his minder for a day at the Winchester by election. He seemed really nice and appeared completely unsuited to an sort of political confrontation.
MacLennan took over the SDP after Owen and his band walked out and led that party through the merger talks with David Steel leading to the formation of the new party after which (presumably) his SDP ceased to exist as did the Liberal Party (though parties calling themselves Liberal and SDP still exist I believe).
Steel and MacLennan served as Joint Interim Leaders until Ashdown was elected in July 1988.
If we count MacLennan we'd have to say this is Vince's second go at leading the party (and second time he has led without a contested election which puts him one in front of Theresa May).
It was the pedant in me and I knew it was borderline, but an excuse for the story. He didn't like knocking on the doors, but when he did would chat away with people for ages.
The UK need to be careful. I have a feeling this is really about trying to extend the rights of the EU against the UK after Brexit in relation to the 'bill'. Right now, the EU cannot take action against the UK in the ECJ over the bill as there is no jurisdiction and, technically, we don't owe anything (if we even do owe anything) until AFTER Brexit has occurred, at which time we are not subject to the ECJ any more. This might be an attempt to fix this.
The UK should not accept any case by a state or the EU being continued against the UK in the ECJ after Brexit. If there are purely commercial and private actions, there are grounds to be flexible in relation to ongoing cases, depending on the facts.
Mr. Eagles, as you may recall, I am not boundless in my praise for the ECJ (indeed, the term could be preceded by 'delenda est'), but letting matters currently going through it continue doesn't look like a line in the sand over which to die, to me.
Gove's only just back in Cabinet. This is an opportunity for May. Sack him, and she looks rather stronger.
But, if she did and Boris resigned to mount a leadership challenge... it could still work in her favour.
Having followed Mike's advice on Green I have to say some of Green's recent antics have left me distinctly unimpressed, he's turning into a May sycophant.
Is that not why he has his new position?
That's my fear, May's last two sycophants, the gruesome twosome, nearly destroyed the Tory party.
Cameron and Osborne?
You really are tedious.
Cameron and Osborne took the Tory party from 198 MPs to 331 MPs, Mrs May and her team made a net seat loss, against Jeremy Corbyn. JEREMY CORBYN FFS!
Why "JEREMY CORBYN FFS"?
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
He's good in a campaign, and May wasn't, hence why plenty were not expecting a landslide, but he does have a great deal of baggage (so much so that 3/4 of his MPs said he wasn't up to the job, which is hilarious after what happened) which most would have expected to have a greater impact.
Yes, so now we know he isn't crap, and is actually extremely popular in some age groups and demographics, using his presence as the oppo as a measure of May's crapness is stupid. He certainly motivates people more than the two labour leaders whom Cameron defeated. Would you say Brown or Miliband will go down in history as better than him?
Hard to say with Brown as it depends if Corbyn gets a chance to be PM, as I don't think it fair to judge them directly. Better thanMiliband? Well, he outperformed him, so no, he Miliband will not go down as better than Corbyn as a leader, though I remain confident Miliband would be a better PM than Corbyn would/will be.
All in all then, not any worse than Brown or Miliband in a GE campaign, & some might say better. So framing May's result as against 'CORBYN FFS' as if he were an inferior opponent, seems wrong to me.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
Fudge works both ways. If they fudge the Single Market rules they will fudge immigration rules too. For your Single Market (in Name Only) you get Freedom of Movement (Except in Name).
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I ended up with a profit, would have been more had Paddy wanted my 400 on Lib Dem 10-19 seats. Also Skybet restricting Lab Hallam to £2 at 25-1 was annoying. Ladbrokes restricting stakes on about 40 England and Wales Tory losers to derogatory amounts was pleasing for the bottom line, mind..
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
The radio salaries are the most out of line. £400-500k for a tv star is definitely what popular folks on other channels get paid, that amount for that moron Nolan on the graveyard shift on R5...On most radio stations that shift is where the work experience gets a go.
Mr. Choose, if you want to see a lot of losing bets you can always (re-)read my 2016 F1 articles
Haha!
We must be the only two on here that have ever placed a losing bet. I'm sorry but I refuse to believe anybody on here made money at the GE. I reduced my losses by laying UKIP where I could but I don't remember a single poster predicting anything but a comfy tory win.
I ended up with a profit, would have been more had Paddy wanted my 400 on Lib Dem 10-19 seats. Also Skybet restricting Lab Hallam to £2 at 25-1 was annoying. Ladbrokes restricting stakes on about 40 England and Wales Tory losers to derogatory amounts was pleasing for the bottom line, mind..
I was restricted to buttons on every winner and laid big on every loser!!
Edit: actually I was laid in big size on a winner, but at 1/3 it didn't cover the other losses
I suppose Gove sees that the ECJ will be used to add as many restrictions on us as the EU wishes, whether the rulings actually match the ongoing cases before it or not. A good many ECJ cases seem to be on immigration.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
Not sure what Corbyn has got to do with it, but I believe he has proposed his 20:1 salary plan should apply to the BBC.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
Jenni Murray withering about the whole business just now
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
True, but are they going to blame Corbyn for those salaries... or the party that has been in power for the past 7 years?
Clearly, it's successive BBC management who are to responsible but I'm struggling to see why this story is a bad one for Corbyn.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it. Given how much over the odds they pay for radio presenters, if anything I expect a rush of applications.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it.
You mean because sometimes the people on the TV own the shows? Or is there some other bit that is missing?
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it.
You mean because sometimes the people on the TV own the shows? Or is there some other bit that is missing?
F1: I was admiring my own bar charts (role-playing as a Lib Dem ) and just noticed that every time a Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes failed to score it DNFed.
In future, probably a good idea to usually consider that a dichotomy between points or DNF, and may open up some betting potential (I'd guess marginal but I'm surprised I hadn't realised that before).
But the Crime Survey of England and Wales, based on people's experiences of crime, showed a 7% drop.
John Flatley from the ONS said some of the rises were due to changes in recording crime, but some categories were down to increases in offences committed.
But the Crime Survey of England and Wales, based on people's experiences of crime, showed a 7% drop.
John Flatley from the ONS said some of the rises were due to changes in recording crime, but some categories were down to increases in offences committed.
The Crime Survey result is interesting... I thought historically people's perception was that crime was increasing even though the official figures showed it falling for many years. Maybe perception lags reality? Or maybe it's as you say, reporting changes.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
I really think in the long-run this could be good for the BBC. Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
It isn't all out in the open though, far from it.
You mean because sometimes the people on the TV own the shows? Or is there some other bit that is missing?
Read below...
Ah okay... it's tricky though - you can't really force third party companies to reveal their internal cost structures?
BBC Worldwide you could I guess - but if it's not license payer money then I guess not really the public's business?
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
Osborne's editorial yesterday made the same point I've made before which is that the BBC risks being rendered irrelevant in the long term by the likes of Amazon and Netflix. We need to decide whether we want a scaled down public service broadcaster that doesn't chase ratings, or an internationally competitive media giant.
Perhaps we could split the BBC and find a way to do both, but the longer the current model continues, the greater the risk to its survival.
The BBC salaries issue looks like another example of the right wing press not being as powerful as it thought it was.
Does it? I've seen some pretty livid centrists fuming at the salaries paid to people who talk on telly; the sort of people that Corbyn needs to win even 275 seats at an election.
No matter the salaries people would moan about it, it's a more predictable and irritating series of events than seeing party spokespersons go up against each other.
William Glenn makes the relevant point about what we want the BBC to be, but this debate is usually just about 'these people are rich' (the gender pay gap enables a slightly more noble covering to be placed on that moan though).
Hmm. Marc Morris' King John bio (paperback) is down to under £3 on Amazon. It was actually cheaper for me to buy a birthday presents *and* the book than just the present, due to postage becoming free.
Shrewd move by Dr Fox - excellent expectations management. The dream of a glorious post-EU sunny upland has faded, so we're now being groomed to hunker down and accept our lot. It was never on the side of any bus, but I suspect this was the Leavers' motive all along - a kind of cleansing of the national psyche through suffering and hardship. We've been pampered enough.
Comments
But more than made it back this time because of some shrewd seat-specific Labour win/hold tips I picked up on here.
Previously I lost the most I've ever lost on Trump, made a small profit on Brexit and a largeish loss on 2015.
Overall still down thanks to Donald. If he decides to quit this year I will be furious.
I should really see what would have happened on a uniform swing from Labour to the Tories. I think I'd have still been up a fair amount with the Tories 10 points clear.
12.8 2017
What's your point?
https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/887946471315619841
St Vince is barely into the new state retirement age.
On making money at the GE, I haven't tallied exactly, but due to only betting small amounts I came a lot closer to breaking even than I would have thought, so only minor losses - the majority of my bets were losses, but I had a reasonable number of SCON wins, and had a fiver on Labour to win Bristol West at a ludicrous 4-1 or there About. I know the Greens seemed keen, but that always looked like a very easy Labour hold. So thanks to Scotland and that Bristol win, all those speculative Tory constituency wins didn't prove too damaging in th end.
Is that a Freudian slip pointing towards Ruth Davidson? Green is the First Secretary of State.
In other news, Vladimir Putin bathes in blood, literally, according to the Daily Express.
the enemies of the Goa'uld[sp] are the Tauri[sp] (humans of Earth). The enemies of the Lib Dems are the Tories. Coincidence?
That's one of the best things about this site, lots of thought-provoking content.
It falls down as we (the Tauri) secretly spent so much on our defence budget we were able to operate military operations intergalacticallywithin 10 years without anyone on earth knowing, while Tories cut the military of course.
Margaret Thatcher wanted to threaten Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in the 1990 Gulf war, according to a top secret memo that has been declassified.
The high-risk gambit that could have led to Britain’s first recorded use of such weapons since 1919 underlines how hawkish Thatcher became in her last days as prime minister.
The documents show that Thatcher was countered by Dick Cheney, then US defence secretary, an unlikely dove.
https://amp.ft.com/content/e2d78a20-6bcd-11e7-b9c7-15af748b60d0
Students don't pay tuition fees.
There is an extra tax on their salary once they start to earn above a salary floor.
He is obviously a pretty good leader in an election campaign. Would you say either of his two predecessors were better? He was also on the winning side at the Referendum, and influenced the result, we are led to believe
You yourself wrote an article saying don't underestimate him didn't you? If so I don't think you can use him being a weak opponent as criticism without being logically inconsistent
No doubt almost all non-contender MPs want May to stay at this point. But most contenders are going to get restless soon, particularly Davis, and once someone launches a challenge, the damage to May will be done. Even winning a vote would still weaken her further.
So, MPs are above all going to want an election winner - if there is a contest I think Boris will become the brexiteers choice of candidate, over Davis, and would win in a membership ballot against Hammond/Rudd etc.
No idea whether he would beat Corbyn or not in an early election, but I think he has the best shot of doing it out of all candidates.
The top CON sell price was 401. I got in, as I recorded at the time at 393 and that finished at 318.
One of the best seat bets was Alistair Meeks tip of the 5/2 on LAB holding Hove which they did with a staggering 18,757 majority. To think that the Tories were tights odds-on favourite
I lost in three LAB-LD contests & Fife NE, but won on the other LD Scottish gains,
My best seat outcome was Oxford W & A where I used to live and where my shortest odds were 3/1.
I didn't bet on LAB in my own Bedford seat even though you could gave got longer than 6/1 on the day beforehand. This was a LAB gain.
It's also possible the Empire could still exist. That might sound fanciful, but it only fell in the 15th century.
But it is a children's programme. The Daleks would be frightening if you're a seven-year-old. I can see the snowflake generation might worry about it, but as kiddies are the demographic, women are the logical choice for the lead.
I may not be totally serious, but the Star Wars franchise is also in the 'Finding Nemo' and 'Frozen' category. None are for adults. I've asked before, but how can light sabres be a serious weapon, An AK47 would do the job far more efficiently.
One of the funnier things about this is the fanbois' reaction. Musk has spent ages saying 'Mars rather than Moon', and his fans denigrated anyone (especially Bezos) who said we need to go to the Moon. Last night Musk talked about going to the Moon, and even mentioned Moonbases, and the fanbois are suddenly hailing going to the Moon as the ideal stepping stone to Mars.
Musk is still clearly looking for stage 2 between 'collect underpants' and 'profit' in his Mars plan. I hope he finds it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)#/media/File:Gnomes_plan.png
I was never a fan of the woman (quite the opposite) but I wouldn't wish alzheimers on anyone. Fortunately, our parliamentary system does provide some checks against the potential issues of a PM going completely off the rails.
Anyways, back to day. Post conference Mrs M needs to start acting like a Prime Minister. She should sack Johnson (or offer him Leader of the House in place of Leadsom) and shift Jeremy Hunt to FCO. And promote Esther McVeigh to Health (she would already have been in the Cabinet had she not lost in 2015).
At a stroke, you create two credible, viable and electable successors.
Oh, and make Ruth Davidson party chairman in place of the hapless McLoughlin.
Look at the US... If Obama had been allowed (and willing) to go for a 3rd term, Trump would still be an amusing TV celeb.
First, welcome to Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader.
He's not the first ex-SDP man to lead the party but as I don't think Charles Kennedy ever supported Labour, he's a first in that regard. For those who say Vince would look more kindly on Labour than the Conservatives, I think there are some Labour Parties for which that would be true and Jeremy Corbyn's isn't one of them.
Apart from the obvious fact that with 12 MPs and 5-7% of the vote in polls, the Party is hardly basking in the sunlit uplands of popularity and relevance, Vince's greatest challenge for me is articulating a credible Brexit message for the Party. Simply saying "we want to stay in the EU" hasn't got us very far and why would it ?
The elephant in the room remains immigration and the incontrovertible logic that it should be the British Government who decides who has the right to enter and reside in the UK is something the LDs need to get past. A transparent and fair system of migration and residency applicable to all non-UK people would be a good start in my view. No one questions that in areas where people are needed (specialist and highly skilled trades) we should be actively encouraging people to come here to learn and/or to settle but, and I'll pick my words carefully, we shouldn't be a country of choice for those seeking an easy life based on criminality and/or other fraudulent activities.
If a condition of remaining in the Single Market is accepting Freedom of Movement, then for me we have to leave the Single Market. There are however more fudges on offer than you'd find in Fore Street in St Ives and it may be we can have a few of those to effectively be in the SM (in name only) but at the same time ensuring immigration is as we want it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a constructive political and economic relationship with the EU and there will no doubt be many areas where we can and indeed should work with the rest of Europe. At the same time, we should be seeking similar relationships elsewhere in the world and moving beyond our "comfort zone" and dealing with nations whose economic and political cultures may be very different to ours but with whom we should be building strong relationships for the decades to come.
A leading Brexiter at the top of the government refused to back one of the UK’s position papers for this week’s exit talks in Brussels, in a sign of Britain’s deep ideological divisions at the highest levels of power.
According to two separate sources, Michael Gove, environment secretary, would not back the paper on the future of cases pending at the European Court of Justice when Brexit concludes at the end of March 2019.
The position paper on the future role of the ECJ was one of a batch of three that the UK government published on July 13 in preparation for this week’s Brexit negotiations.
The paper makes it clear that some UK cases would be under way before the ECJ at the time of Brexit and that it would be necessary for some to continue to work their way through the court.
https://www.ft.com/content/37d954b6-6c89-11e7-b9c7-15af748b60d0
Gove's only just back in Cabinet. This is an opportunity for May. Sack him, and she looks rather stronger.
But, if she did and Boris resigned to mount a leadership challenge... it could still work in her favour.
I don't bet as heavily on politics as I once did, partly because of the 2015 disaster. I had only myself to blame. I wasn't spending enough time on it and you can't be a successful punter in any field if you just dip in and out.
I wasn't going to get involved in 2017 either but when Labour Seats got down to around 150 I guessed they were oversold. I started buying up to about 180, and then when they went above 200 I sold half and kept the rest, for fun.
The exit poll stunned me as much as anybody, and not just because of the jolly profit.
You're probably right about Star Wars, but I prefer my sci-fi to be a little darker. More like GoT. I'd have had Luke Skywalker beheaded early on for being a snowflake.
I liked the first 'Alien' much better than the sequels.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j5ek/drsi
As I said last Sunday, I don't care about the gender of the Doctor - what I do care about is the quality of the writing and acting. I thought Capaldi's speech to the Master and Missy in the finale was epic and showed him at his best.
They have different writers and I'll admit as with any show there are patchier episodes (NCIS doesn't always get it right either) but Chris Chibnall deserves a chance and has his lead (or muse). I suspect there'll be a bit less action hero and a bit more psychological drama and that does run a risk of alienating a key demographic who like the action.
I was afraid if Kris Marshall got the part, it would be a Peter Davison Mark 2 with a bit of Pertwee and Baker thrown in. Finding original nuances and personae to the character becomes more difficult with each regeneration.
Hunt is available at 50.
An early attempt to introduce this to the public was made last year with an appeal for funds. MI5 tried writing "Let's give £350m a week to fight the Goa'uld" on the side of a bus but Boris Johnson had second thoughts and vetoed the plan at the last minute. The wording on the bus was quickly painted over to make it harmless and unnoticed.
Seriously though, I think he'll make a reasonable job of it. Plenty of experience and so on. He'll get a bit more coverage because of the sense that he has something worthy to say.
BUT the net gain was about £25, and as it was my first serious venture into betting there were lots of free bets in the mix, some used up on boring seat number/% of vote bets which came good, and SCON and Wirral S got me over the line. Exciting stuff, but probably back to the sidelines in future.
Steel and MacLennan served as Joint Interim Leaders until Ashdown was elected in July 1988.
If we count MacLennan we'd have to say this is Vince's second go at leading the party (and second time he has led without a contested election which puts him one in front of Theresa May).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/19/bbc-pay-list-hidden-names-corporation-does-not-want-see/
If Theresa goes in the next few weeks look to David Davis.
If she goes after March 2019 there will be a strong desire within the party to move on to a new generation.
But ... chortle chortle ... PB seemed to be convinced for days on end that a Tory overall majority was 'free money' @ 1.20. AFAIK it wasn't just Tories. By taking that advice seriously, I put too much money on it and made a net loss on my non-constituency bets.
I bet more but made a worse return than in either 2015 or 2010.
Which also conveniently allows Corbyn to posture on the issue without having actually to do anything should he get into government...
The UK should not accept any case by a state or the EU being continued against the UK in the ECJ after Brexit. If there are purely commercial and private actions, there are grounds to be flexible in relation to ongoing cases, depending on the facts.
Also Skybet restricting Lab Hallam to £2 at 25-1 was annoying.
Ladbrokes restricting stakes on about 40 England and Wales Tory losers to derogatory amounts was pleasing for the bottom line, mind..
Edit: actually I was laid in big size on a winner, but at 1/3 it didn't cover the other losses
Much harder for the right-wing press to criticise and distort when it's all out in the open.
And I think the BBC will find they don't struggle to hold onto talent as much they might think and/or that much of the talent is actually replaceable.
Clearly, it's successive BBC management who are to responsible but I'm struggling to see why this story is a bad one for Corbyn.
Or is there some other bit that is missing?
In future, probably a good idea to usually consider that a dichotomy between points or DNF, and may open up some betting potential (I'd guess marginal but I'm surprised I hadn't realised that before).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-figures-show-biggest-rise-crime-in-a-decade
That'll be Jezza's fault no doubt!
John Flatley from the ONS said some of the rises were due to changes in recording crime, but some categories were down to increases in offences committed.
BBC Worldwide you could I guess - but if it's not license payer money then I guess not really the public's business?
Perhaps we could split the BBC and find a way to do both, but the longer the current model continues, the greater the risk to its survival.
William Glenn makes the relevant point about what we want the BBC to be, but this debate is usually just about 'these people are rich' (the gender pay gap enables a slightly more noble covering to be placed on that moan though).