Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Corbynite candidate might not win the Scottish Labour

SystemSystem Posts: 11,721
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Corbynite candidate might not win the Scottish Labour Leadership

Why the Labour centrists stand a better chance in Scotland – @chris__curtis looks at Scottish Labour's membership https://t.co/WJtd00qpQ2

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042
    First like Frau Merkel.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,519
    Second, like the tier of European football Arsenal will be playing this season.
  • Options
    Worth remembering it's not just members who'll get a vote. You can register as a Labour supporter for £12 and get a vote, too. This will undoubtedly favour Mr Leonard.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    As with all Leadership contests I am leaving this well alone due to my rubbishness at picking the winner.
  • Options
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Damn it. Was about to be "Third, Reich on time."
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    My post disappeared. The International Olympic Committee has nothing on this place.

    I suggested that I am tempted to put a few quid on Jackie Baillie, simply because the other 2 are so awful. She is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box herself but compared to the invisible man and the empty suit she is a colossus (and that is not a weightest comment, honest).
  • Options
    The findings from YouGov show that Scottish Labour members are more centrists than those in Scotland? Shome mishtake shurely?
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042
    Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
    Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!
  • Options

    The findings from YouGov show that Scottish Labour members are more centrists than those in Scotland? Shome mishtake shurely?

    Yup, fixed now.
  • Options
    dixiedean said:

    Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
    Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!

    I've updated the header with this link.

    https://leftfootforward.org/2017/08/who-will-replace-kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-leadership-runners-riders/
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Damn it. Was about to be "Third, Reich on time."

    Good afternoon, Mr Dancer (and everyone else). This Vanilla quirk makes claiming 1st/2nd/3rd positions even more of a gamble, as you never know whether you've got the real thread.


  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042

    dixiedean said:

    Must confess, I know little to nothing about the candidates. Who are the runners and riders?
    Understand it won't compare to the UKIP line up for entertainment!

    I've updated the header with this link.

    https://leftfootforward.org/2017/08/who-will-replace-kezia-dugdale-scottish-labour-leadership-runners-riders/
    Thank you. Remarkable speedy and efficient service!
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.
  • Options
    The Scottish political centre is to the left of the English and Welsh centre. For this reason I wouldn't read too much into the first result.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,220
    The findings from YouGov show that Scottish Labour members are more centrists than those in the rest of Britain

    Nah, the centre of gravity is just much more leftwing nord des lignes.
  • Options
    calum said:

    If only the EU had stayed as a common trading community, then so would we.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    It would be interesting if Jenny Marra stood. I had quite a lot of dealings with her in the referendum campaign. She was an excellent organiser, a really hard worker (unlike, say, the sitting Labour MP in Dundee West at the time) and very personable. We agreed on a surprisingly wide range of matters. She has kept up a reasonable profile in relation to health matters in the press, particularly in the Courier. She has been good at holding the SNP government to account although it is increasingly a target rich environment.

    I do recall a debate where she seemed a little outclassed by both Nicola and Ruth but that is fairly normal for Scottish politicians. She would need to toughen up a bit.

    I suspect that even if TSE is right about the membership she is too much of a centrist to win. She was the organiser of Jim Murphy's leadership campaign. I can't see her having a lot in common with Corbynites but she is a rare talent in the party.
  • Options
    Indeed, and good afternoon, Miss JGP.

    F1: the Bottas contract sounds like a one-year deal but there's no specific number mentioned on the BBC report. I'd be mildly surprised if it were that short, as his pace as been good, and he's proven a very good pairing with Hamilton.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    The look on Kezia's face as Corbyn holds forth in that photo is really quite amusing.
  • Options

    calum said:
    If only the EU had stayed as a common trading community, then so would we.
    It took the political institutions to create the foundation that made the single market possible.
  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,883
    Sarwar is still associated with the Scottish Labour that was destroyed and he's probably a step down from Dugdale. His last ditch attempts to champion Corbyn are also incredibly transparent and part of what people hate about politicians. There must be a better choice for the centrists.

    It doesn't feel like the left are putting forward their best candidate either, surely Neil Findlay or Rowley would have been a much easier sell than an unknown Yorkshireman.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    Artist said:

    Sarwar is still associated with the Scottish Labour that was destroyed and he's probably a step down from Dugdale. His last ditch attempts to champion Corbyn are also incredibly transparent and part of what people hate about politicians. There must be a better choice for the centrists.

    It doesn't feel like the left are putting forward their best candidate either, surely Neil Findlay or Rowley would have been a much easier sell than an unknown Yorkshireman.

    Its almost as if no one really wants the job isn't it? Jenny Marra would be the centrist candidate of choice for me and Findlay for the left. Baillie is a reasonable bet to come through the middle, I think.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    MTimT said:

    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

    Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    FPT @ Casino Royale.

    I kept a constant watch on John Curtice's projection for the BBC, which never had the Conservatives on fewer than 313 seats, and as high as 322 at one point. Once it became clear that the Conservatives were easily holding places like North Warwickshire, Tamworth, Erewash, Amber Valley, Swindon, then it was hard to see them getting under 310 seats.

    There were a lot of rumours that turned out to be unfounded (losing Shipley, Witney, Finchley, Putney, Kingswood) which drove the Conservatives down to 300 on spread markets.

  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

    Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.
    Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

    Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.
    It occurs to me that now might turn out to be the best time ever to have lived, after the major technological and medical advances have kicked in and before it all goes utterly pear-shaped from overpopulation, Korean nukes and the climate going to hell in a handcart. The thought that this is as good as it gets is dispiriting.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

    @JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,078

    Indeed, and good afternoon, Miss JGP.

    F1: the Bottas contract sounds like a one-year deal but there's no specific number mentioned on the BBC report. I'd be mildly surprised if it were that short, as his pace as been good, and he's proven a very good pairing with Hamilton.

    In 2019 there are a few more drivers possibly on the market including (I think) both Daniel Ricciardo and Max Verstappen...
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    @JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

    @JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.

    Tories best abstaining
  • Options
    Mr. Eek, may well be Ricciardo they're after.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    Scott_P said:

    @JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

    @JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.

    But the parliament is the will of the people, and as we know from Brexit, we have to follow the will of the people...
  • Options
    "Yorkshire accented former public schoolboy?"

    Are you TSE in disguise??

    :lol:
  • Options
    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

    Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.
    Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.
    Goldenrod often is inaccurately said to cause hay fever in humans.[6] The pollen causing this allergic reaction is produced mainly by ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), blooming at the same time as the goldenrod and pollinated by wind. Goldenrod pollen is too heavy and sticky to be blown far from the flowers, and is pollinated mainly by insects.[6] Frequent handling of goldenrod and other flowers, however, can cause allergic reactions, sometimes irritating enough to force florists to change occupation.[7]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldenrod
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,450
    edited September 2017
    619 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @JasonGroves1: Tories sound resigned to losing votes on pay cap and tuition fees. MPs not being whipped to turn up. Sources say neither vote binding

    @JohnRentoul: @JasonGroves1 Tories sensibly retreating rather than be defeated after DUP say its 10 MPs will vote for Labour motions.

    But the parliament is the will of the people, and as we know from Brexit, we have to follow the will of the people...
    You need to wait until the statement on the 22nd November by the Chancellor. Have little doubt the Nurses will receive a fair rise and also expect movement on tuition fees, though probably modest at this stage. It is also time for HMG to award the National Living Wage to all young employees from 21 upwards
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    A fascinating article about how rising CO2 levels are adversely affecting the ratio of carbs to essential nutrients in all the vegetables we grow:

    http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?lo=ap_a1

    I guess it makes sense - fast growing and larger varietals both always seem to have less taste.

    Very interesting. And how amazing that "the Smithsonian Institution also happens to have hundreds of samples of goldenrod [a weed], dating back to 1842", and that that turned out to be a useful thing to have.
    Not just a weed, about the biggest single contributor to pollen-based allergies in these parts.
    Goldenrod often is inaccurately said to cause hay fever in humans.[6] The pollen causing this allergic reaction is produced mainly by ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), blooming at the same time as the goldenrod and pollinated by wind. Goldenrod pollen is too heavy and sticky to be blown far from the flowers, and is pollinated mainly by insects.[6] Frequent handling of goldenrod and other flowers, however, can cause allergic reactions, sometimes irritating enough to force florists to change occupation.[7]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldenrod
    Well, you learn something every day ... ;)
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
  • Options
    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,187

    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

    Which digit do you think?
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,009

    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

    I really like Anna Sourby. You know just what she thinks. She has great strength of character. I'd love her to rejoin the LibDems. She was a member of the Liberal party in the early 70s I think.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    The whole of the HOC agrees with me re NHS pay.

    No need for a Division even!!
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

    I really like Anna Sourby. You know just what she thinks. She has great strength of character. I'd love her to rejoin the LibDems. She was a member of the Liberal party in the early 70s I think.
    Shes in my top 5 tory team....
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
    More
    .@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

    I really like Anna Sourby. You know just what she thinks. She has great strength of character. I'd love her to rejoin the LibDems. She was a member of the Liberal party in the early 70s I think.
    Really? In early 1970s? She'd have been about 15.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,911
    Paul Waugh‏Verified account @paulwaugh 60m60 minutes ago
    More
    Blimey. Govt really bottled it and handed Labour victory on Opposition Day motion calling for NHS pay rise.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,078

    Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
    More
    .@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

    So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    eek said:

    Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
    More
    .@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

    So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?
    Just sack a few staff, ideally managers.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,771
    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    well theyre not paying taxes and theyre by passing pokiticans

    a target as you say

    politics will beat economics
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,026
    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
    More
    .@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

    So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?
    Just sack a few staff, ideally managers.
    Rejig the automatic pay increases.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Yes absolutely, my point was that It is not a foregone conclusion that big politics = Mayweather and big tech = McGregor given that big tech has all the money and all the public on its side. I think he may be wrong to say that "People watching this from afar sometimes suggest that tech simply has too much money to stop. This is nonsense. Politics is run by politicians, and while they like money, they like attention more. People who think the money tech spends can buy protection from the political system misunderstand their dynamic: The transfers of money referred to blandly as “campaign finance” are equal parts bribery and extortion, and the system works best when the target is scared."
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,519
    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
    directory enquiries...

    It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    eek said:

    Jonathan Ashworth‏Verified account @JonAshworth 18m18 minutes ago
    More
    .@houseofcommons just unanimously approved @UKLabour motion to end NHS pay cap. Victory for campaigners

    So exactly where is the money for pay rises going to come from?
    Just sack a few staff, ideally managers.
    Rejig the automatic pay increases.
    Maybe we could look at the pensions paid to former staff. I am sure @bigjohnowls would approve of that.

    The NHS in E&W employs about 1.5m people so if you assumed that they were all paid the same an additional 4% increase would mean the headcount would need to be reduced by 60K to stay within budget. Of course, in reality, any job losses are likely to be focussed on those who actually do the work rather than sitting in offices having meetings so that number may be nearly doubled.

    Or we can just print some more I suppose.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
    directory enquiries...

    It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.
    I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,519
    edited September 2017
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
    directory enquiries...

    It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.
    I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.
    Agree but those f***ing irritating two blokes are on our screens for a reason (same as rose sellers on motorway crossings) - if it didn't work they wouldn't be there.

    Check this out from wiki:

    "Calls to 118 118 are charged £8.98 per call plus £4.49 per minute (after 60 seconds) including VAT (tariff code SC087) plus the access charge set by the caller's landline or mobile phone provider."

    I would imagine old people still use them or some service similar. But of course the value is not the directory enquiries, eye-watering charges as they may be, but the brand. They have now launched 118 118 Money and presumably could diversify to home grocery delivery or anything else they fancied.

    But to the original point - govt directory enquiries cost 40p before the service was "liberalised".
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/theres-blood-in-the-water-in-silicon-valley?utm_term=.noP4wmjzl#.waGqObDBE

    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/
    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
    directory enquiries...

    It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.
    I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.
    Agree but those f***ing irritating two blokes are on our screens for a reason (same as rose sellers on motorway crossings) - if it didn't work they wouldn't be there.

    Check this out from wiki:

    "Calls to 118 118 are charged £8.98 per call plus £4.49 per minute (after 60 seconds) including VAT (tariff code SC087) plus the access charge set by the caller's landline or mobile phone provider."

    I would imagine old people still use them or some service similar. But of course the value is not the directory enquiries, eye-watering charges as they may be, but the brand. They have now launched 118 118 Money and presumably could diversify to home grocery delivery or anything else they fancied.

    But to the original point - govt directory enquiries cost 40p before the service was "liberalised".
    Wow. Never, ever again.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    MTimT said:

    Clearly, I'm procrastinating today ... Reading interesting articles rather than finishing the first draft of a chapter due a week ago ...

    Here's another great article - on the coming wave of anti-trust legislation in the US against the tech giants



    The trouble is the pesky free market doing the opposite of what it is meant to do. We all use google as search engine by choice, and the synergies from then using android phones and gmail and chrome are fantastic, and what the market wants - monopoly in breadth and in depth. And none of us wants to remember which friends use facebook vs myspace vs othersite, the system works precisely because facebook has no competitors.

    And anti-trust doesn't have much of a history of succeeding.

    https://xkcd.com/1118/

    Not arguing on the issues - I agree that in economics there are lots of natural monopolies (pretty much all networks). And I agree that regulation of monopolies, or worse, natural monopoly busting, has had poor results with many unintended consequences.

    I just found the rapidly changing and coalescing political environment interesting.
    Why it is supposed to be good for the consumer to have to subscribe to both Sky and BT to watch football is something I have yet to work out. All competition seems to have done is massively increase the fees paid to the EPL so that both are more expensive than they otherwise would be.
    directory enquiries...

    It's enough to turn anyone into a rabid Corbynite nationaliser.
    I honestly cannot remember the last time I used it. It is so much easier to just google now it has got complicated.
    Agree but those f***ing irritating two blokes are on our screens for a reason (same as rose sellers on motorway crossings) - if it didn't work they wouldn't be there.

    Check this out from wiki:

    "Calls to 118 118 are charged £8.98 per call plus £4.49 per minute (after 60 seconds) including VAT (tariff code SC087) plus the access charge set by the caller's landline or mobile phone provider."

    I would imagine old people still use them or some service similar. But of course the value is not the directory enquiries, eye-watering charges as they may be, but the brand. They have now launched 118 118 Money and presumably could diversify to home grocery delivery or anything else they fancied.

    But to the original point - govt directory enquiries cost 40p before the service was "liberalised".
    Wow. Never, ever again.
    In the City underwriting fees were fixed at 2.25% The MMC steamed in to break up the cartel - fees went up to 4%
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
  • Options
    And in other news: Paris awarded 2024 Olympics and LA awarded 2028 Olympics
  • Options

    Barnesian said:

    Surely this gif is what's needed on multiple PB occasions.... just seen it.

    https://twitter.com/Rosball/status/907965227580436480

    I really like Anna Sourby. You know just what she thinks. She has great strength of character. I'd love her to rejoin the LibDems. She was a member of the Liberal party in the early 70s I think.
    Really? In early 1970s? She'd have been about 15.
    And she has still never grown up.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
  • Options

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,942
    edited September 2017
    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?
  • Options

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    Yes and no. The correct place for money debates is surely in the budget where a balanced package needs to be found in order to fund any giveaways (or deliberately increase the deficit accordingly).

    If you allow debates like this to be taken seriously and binding then you can constantly pick all the candy you want while not balancing the other side of the equation. It's not a responsible way to behave.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.
    Nick, do you know who are the "Commons authorities"? My response would depend on whether they are political appointments or whether they are constitutional/legal advisers.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,446
    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,942

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Corbyn would never be violently nasty about an enemy...
  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    I hope no one considers me nasty. However, George Osborne has turned not only nasty but downright disgracefull. He is acting like a spoilt toff who has been jilted and it is not a pretty sight.

    You can object to Theresa May as much as you like but he is now becoming threatening. Very sad and as a BBC presenter has just said it must be hurting Theresa May but it is now damaging him much more

    And Liverpool 1 down
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,942

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    I hope no one considers me nasty.
    Definitely not BG! :D
  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    I hope no one considers me nasty.
    Definitely not BG! :D
    That's good - thank you
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,837

    Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.

    I presume* the issue is that no legislation was created by the vote. It is the legislation that is binding, not the vote. This motion therefore is non-binding in the same way as the Brexit referendum was non-binding. Nevertheless the Opposition has the moral authority to beat up the government for not respecting parliament.

    I believe the last lost Opposition debate was by the 2009 Labour Government who were shamed by the vote into providing UK residence for ex-Gurkha soldiers.

    * I am absolutely not a constitutional lawyer.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    Not on spending - if a government can't get it's supply approved then it is dead. It should be a confidence matter to change spending plans
  • Options

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    Agreed - I'd always thought the purpose of Parliament was to pass laws that the majority of MPs voted for. Surely for those purposes a "Government" is just an artificial construct of at least 326 MPs who agree to always vote the same way.
    Yrp. I thought Parliament was supposed to be the ultimate authority which the Government answer to. If they vote for something then it should mean something.
  • Options

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    It is Catch 22.

    If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

    It is only because it is non binding that they can win.
  • Options
    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    He has be reading too much TSE :)
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,837
    edited September 2017

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    It is Catch 22.

    If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

    It is only because it is non binding that they can win.
    I don't think that's the case. It depends on the whim of the DUP whether the government can win ANY vote. The government bribed the DUP with a billion of taxpayer money entered into an arrangement with the DUP for them to support certain bits of legislation.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    TSE - my personal experience too tells me you should never underestimate a former public schoolboy with a Yorkshire accent, though in my case I'm told it's a mid-Atlantic one.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,919
    Evening all :)

    The "lifting" of the public sector pay cap looks dreadful politics. I imagine the Government thinks that public support for the Police, prison officers and possibly nurses will be such that everyone will think lifting the cap is a good idea even if it's not clear how the additional wage bill will be met.

    The problem is other public sector workers such as firemen and other health workers and some local authority workers will argue that what's good for the Police should be good for them.

    The FBU has already rejected a 2% pay deal - the public are likely to be fairly supportive of firefighters so that's one problem but other public workers will now think the Government's weakness will merit pushing for more money so we may well see local authority workers moving toward greater militancy.

  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042
    FF43 said:

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    It is Catch 22.

    If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

    It is only because it is non binding that they can win.
    I don't think that's the case. It depends on the whim of the DUP whether the government can win ANY vote. The government bribed the DUP with a billion of taxpayer money entered into an arrangement with the DUP for them to support certain bits of legislation.
    They can win any vote on Brexit, budget or confidence. Anything else is up to DUP. This has betting implications. When Brexit is over, the government will have to negotiate to get any other business through. The chances of this lasting to 2022 receded today I feel.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    The "lifting" of the public sector pay cap looks dreadful politics. I imagine the Government thinks that public support for the Police, prison officers and possibly nurses will be such that everyone will think lifting the cap is a good idea even if it's not clear how the additional wage bill will be met.

    The problem is other public sector workers such as firemen and other health workers and some local authority workers will argue that what's good for the Police should be good for them.

    The FBU has already rejected a 2% pay deal - the public are likely to be fairly supportive of firefighters so that's one problem but other public workers will now think the Government's weakness will merit pushing for more money so we may well see local authority workers moving toward greater militancy.

    It is crystal clear how it will be paid for though. Out of existing budgets. That is not what the Police or any other Public sector worker is asking for. It is below inflation too. So the worst of all possible politics.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    I hope no one considers me nasty. However, George Osborne has turned not only nasty but downright disgracefull. He is acting like a spoilt toff who has been jilted and it is not a pretty sight.

    You can object to Theresa May as much as you like but he is now becoming threatening. Very sad and as a BBC presenter has just said it must be hurting Theresa May but it is now damaging him much more

    And Liverpool 1 down
    My experience otf tories in local government is that many are nasty. They believe they have a god given right to be in control but when they lose thpet turn nasty, frustrating the new adminisyration as best they can. As the tory leader of the opposition group told ne "your plans are brilliant but if we let you implement them we'll be ot of power ,for a generation" to them regaining contro was more important than serving the people who elected them
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380



    It is Catch 22.

    If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

    It is only because it is non binding that they can win.


    Not so. It was thought to be binding last weekand the DUP were prepared to support it on that basis - that's a major reason why the Government announced the end of the pay freeze.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380
    AnneJGP said:



    Nick, do you know who are the "Commons authorities"? My response would depend on whether they are political appointments or whether they are constitutional/legal advisers.

    I believe it's the Speaker and his advisers.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    The extreme left are very nasty, but most Labour people are (in my experience) quite pleasant.

    Most Tories are as well, but there some who are obsessively factional. They think they have a God-given right to rule, and hate the opposing faction who keep them out of office.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 28,042
    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    The extreme left are very nasty, but most Labour people are (in my experience) quite pleasant.

    Most Tories are as well, but there some who are obsessively factional. They think they have a God-given right to rule, and hate the opposing faction who keep them out of office.
    A fair and accurate summary from my experience. There are also some nasties on both sides who are perfectly lovely people except when it comes to politics.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    dixiedean said:

    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    The extreme left are very nasty, but most Labour people are (in my experience) quite pleasant.

    Most Tories are as well, but there some who are obsessively factional. They think they have a God-given right to rule, and hate the opposing faction who keep them out of office.
    A fair and accurate summary from my experience. There are also some nasties on both sides who are perfectly lovely people except when it comes to politics.
    I have to say that I have no experience of the labour party but they probably think the same way in some areas
  • Options

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
    Yes, I'm pretty sure George was only joking. I mean, if he genuinely did get Theresa's diced-up remains in his freezer then he could face the serious charge of being an accomplice to murder. I don't think George would go that far.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
    Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,497
    edited September 2017
    In the first week of champions league fixtures English clubs currently have a goal difference of 18-2. Remarkable.

    18-3. You can always rely on Liverpool to screw things up.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,220
    DavidL said:

    In the first week of champions league fixtures English clubs currently have a goal difference of 18-2. Remarkable.

    And for Scottish teams that stat is 0-5. :)
  • Options
    MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,240
    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
    Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.
    He was treated very shittily by Theresa.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
    Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.
    It says an awful lot about him.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought that Labour had contrived a meaningful vote on university fees which could actually stop the increase of £250 coming into effect. Is that not the case? Was it more gesture politics?

    The Commons authorities (to general surprise) ruled that the motion, like the one on thre NHS pay cap, was non-binding, so the Tories are simply boycotting the motions and will ignore them.

    It's called taking back democratic control. Or something.
    Aren't OpDay motions always non-binding? I don't think the opposition can propose spending measures can they anyway? Only amend government proposals
    I'm not up on the details, but a form of motion was selected which has up to now been thought to be binding, apparently, and is now ruled not to be binding.

    In general it seems undesirable that the Government can ignore the will of Parliament, whatever the form that it's expressed - it's another indication of the weak position of a minority government, but they ought to need to find allies or accept the view of the majority, rather than just shrug it off.
    It is Catch 22.

    If the vote were binding then the opposition would not win it.

    It is only because it is non binding that they can win.
    The other part of the Opposition victory is that the Tory manifesto has been junked, and a fair chunk of Corbyn's manifesto taking place, such as the ditching of the public sector pay ceiling.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,013
    edited September 2017

    Sean_F said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Serious question - Why are Conservatives such horrible people?

    Osborne's latest rant that he won't rest until Theresa May is "cut up in pieces in his freezer" is just the latest in a long line of seriously bitter and angry Tories that we've seen over the years (Heath, Hezza, Fatch, etc.)

    I mean sure Labour and Lib-Dems have their fall out but can anybody seriously think of a leading Labour and Lib-Dem MP or former MP that would make such a violently malevolent comment about an enemy as Osborne's about May?

    Ali Campbell maybe? But not many others...

    They Tories are a nasty, nasty bunch aren't they?

    Corbyn on Blair???
    Of course not. Corbyn wouldn't even say he wished Blair (or indeed May or even Farage) would have a sleepless night: he thinks it's inappropriate to wish ill on anyone (I've heard him shut up an anti-Trump crowd by saying there's good in everyone), and a distraction from persuading people on the issues.

    Lots of Labour MPs would be less restrained about rivals, though Osborne's remark (though presumably supposed to be a joke) does stand out. Danczuk is the closest parallel I can think of, when he was a Labour MP. But most Tories wouldn't go that far either.
    Osborne seems to be one of those people whose life would just seem empty, were it not for the hate and spite he directs to those he believes have wronged him.
    He was treated very shittily by Theresa.
    We're all treated shittily by someone, during our lifetimes. Most of us aren't bitter and obsessive about it.
This discussion has been closed.