Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the number of tweets by Donald Trump next week

SystemSystem Posts: 12,259
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the number of tweets by Donald Trump next week

Paddy Power have a market up on how many times Donald Trump will tweet from his @RealDonaldTrump account between the 18th and 24th of September.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    First! Like Boris out the door...
  • PP's offer seems like a test of the efficient market hypothesis. If 31-40 should be favourite but has been priced at 11/1, then either someone else will have taken all the 11s or ithe market knows something we do not and it can't be a value price.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2017
    Not that I'm still smarting over yesterday's treble going down on the last leg which would never have been included if I'd read the form properly.
  • One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,866

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    You do know that you'll never change anyone's mind, about anything, ever. Right?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    I see the George Osborne row continues to rumble on. I felt T. May made a big tactical error in sacking someone of his talents but his current behaviour is beginning to suggest her judgement on this may not have been so far wrong. I defy anyone to justify his remarks without accepting the charge of hypocrite!

    Over to you TSE :)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    felix said:

    I see the George Osborne row continues to rumble on. I felt T. May made a big tactical error in sacking someone of his talents but his current behaviour is beginning to suggest her judgement on this may not have been so far wrong. I defy anyone to justify his remarks without accepting the charge of hypocrite!

    Over to you TSE :)

    This is a very funny sketch:

    https://www.ft.com/content/fa4de166-9938-11e7-b83c-9588e51488a0

    Or for those who need google;

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.

    Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/theresa-may-takes-her-darkest-most-desperate-turn-yet
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Has she taken those claims to the police? And if not, why not?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
  • Do retweets count as tweets for this bet?

    11/1 looks very fair on the face of it.
  • rcs1000 said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    You do know that you'll never change anyone's mind, about anything, ever. Right?
    I live in hope. :)
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    Scott_P said:

    It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.

    Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/theresa-may-takes-her-darkest-most-desperate-turn-yet

    A ridiculous comparison, however. She did not line the benches with soldiers, nor does this despite the hysteria enable her to make new laws by decree, nor has she removed from Parliament the power to sack her and indeed the ability to sit at all, nor has she abolished elections.

    I agree that in the wrong hands these powers could be used that way in theory. However in practice the powers Hitler arrogated derived from the Weimar Constitution, Article 48, which allowed the President to rule by decree - as Hindenburg had done in effect for the previous three years. What Hitler did was transfer that power to himself. A moot point because ultimately Hindenburg died in 1934 and Hitler took the merged offices of President and Chancellor, renaming himself the Fuhrer in the process.

    Unless you or the author of this piece are seriously suggesting May will abolish the monarchy and arrogate the Royal Prerogative to herself this comparison merely looks silly.

    I am deeply unhappy about the power grab on select committees, which is totally wrong and needs to be reversed asap. I certainly won't vote for any party that doesn't promise to do that. But please, let's keep a sense of perspective. Comparisons with Dollfuss may be alarmingly straightforward, comparisons with Hitler are not.
  • felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
  • felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    The Conservative conference looks set to be a sequel to The Wicker Man.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    I can't really see Trump being consistent in anything so presumably his tweet output will depend on how excited he is getting. On one view the latest events in Korea should accelerate his production but he got so much grief for the fire and brimstone comments that even he might be more cautious.

    What I think that this boils down to is that we have an eccentric in the Whitehouse whose behaviour is neither rational nor predictable. It makes this market look pretty unattractive to me. Good try though.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Not a market for me, I think. Too difficult to try and predict.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,399
    edited September 2017
    The perils of not being an integrated member of a trade bloc. US company Boeing obtains an anti-dumping charge against Canadian company Bombardier for precisely the same early model discounting that Boeing itself uses. The problem for Bombardier is the US Department of Commerce decides, not a supranational body. The US body doesn't care what the Canadians think or might do. This case also affects the UK as the wings for this plane are made in Northern Ireland.

    https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/14/bombardier-concedes-likely-loss-trade-complaint-looks-next-phase
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    The Conservative conference looks set to be a sequel to The Wicker Man.
    I do hope you're not Theresa May as Britt Ekland...

    And having caused everyone to vomit, I am off to work. Have a good day.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Osborne's comments are no better or worse than Jess Phillips saying she was going to stab Corbyn in the front.

    The main conclusion to be drawn is that both Osborne and Phillips are very unpleasant people.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,158
    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    One thing that is slightly concerning this morning is that it does appear that SK is starting to learn from the Trump playbook where provocations by NK are not met with soothing words or a search for political solutions but blunt threats. Up till now SK seemed a bit of a brake on Trump's belligerence and an important one since the US really could not start a war from their soil without their permission. Today that looks less the case.

    The next stage on the ramping up may well be more US kit into SK beyond the 28K men there already. Advanced kit will tick off China but a great deal more will be required (as per the Gulf war) before a non nuclear response becomes a realistic possibility. It is not that NK could not be beaten, it is more that their weapons within range of Seoul would need to be taken out quickly before the damage to the City became intolerable.

    Kim Jung Un is getting himself into a corner where he is no longer being rewarded for his threats or aggression. I wonder if he is smart enough or strong enough domestically to find a plan B.
  • felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
    "due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.

    In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.

    And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Mortimer said:

    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

    He is still very active in politics.

    And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    What message will Theresa May take with her to Italy next week? Inside Number 10, the view is not to spill a single fagiolo, a bean, before the words come out of her mouth.

    That's not just because they want the story to be told on her own terms in her own words, when she is ready to tell it.

    But also, perhaps, because I'm told that she is yet to have signed off the full contents with those members of the cabinet who might object to some of it.

    I'm told Theresa May has not yet put a proposal to the foreign secretary that would involve continued payments to the EU during a transition period for a couple of years after the UK leaves the EU, or to other Brexiteers.

    "She has yet to try it on for size with these people", I was told. And sources suggest it will be hard for Mr Johnson to stomach in particular. "I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable," one source said.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41274743
  • DavidL said:

    One thing that is slightly concerning this morning is that it does appear that SK is starting to learn from the Trump playbook where provocations by NK are not met with soothing words or a search for political solutions but blunt threats. Up till now SK seemed a bit of a brake on Trump's belligerence and an important one since the US really could not start a war from their soil without their permission. Today that looks less the case.

    The next stage on the ramping up may well be more US kit into SK beyond the 28K men there already. Advanced kit will tick off China but a great deal more will be required (as per the Gulf war) before a non nuclear response becomes a realistic possibility. It is not that NK could not be beaten, it is more that their weapons within range of Seoul would need to be taken out quickly before the damage to the City became intolerable.

    Kim Jung Un is getting himself into a corner where he is no longer being rewarded for his threats or aggression. I wonder if he is smart enough or strong enough domestically to find a plan B.

    I fear that SK (and the US) may be getting intelligence that we (the public) are not seeing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635
    Scott_P said:

    Mortimer said:

    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

    He is still very active in politics.

    And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited September 2017
    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    If Nadine wants him banned from Conference, he is clearly doing a good job. Nadine is bonkers even in her more lucid moments, as for banning, isn't that rather Stalinist?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:

    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too

    More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    I see LBC have hired yet another presenter whose most recent claim to fame is losing

    Hopkins
    Farage

    Now Fat Eck joins the lineup.

    Of course he has some loss of earnings to make up...
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    George is embarrassing.

    I think May is a poor PM and politician, but George's comments are based purely on his own injured pride. He's acting like a three-year-old ... "I'll get you for that, you bitch. How dare you sack me!"

    Sulking is never a good look.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
    "due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.

    In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.

    And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635
    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too

    More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
    Her comments that his remarks were not helpful in preventing attacks and abuse on women were hardly party political particularly. Osborne is now equally loathed by the bulk of the Tory and Labour parties, the only politician of recent times who could perhaps match him on that is Peter Mandelson but Mandelson never had the Heath like grudge Osborne now seems to be having
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    Scott_P said:

    What message will Theresa May take with her to Italy next week? Inside Number 10, the view is not to spill a single fagiolo, a bean, before the words come out of her mouth.

    That's not just because they want the story to be told on her own terms in her own words, when she is ready to tell it.

    But also, perhaps, because I'm told that she is yet to have signed off the full contents with those members of the cabinet who might object to some of it.

    I'm told Theresa May has not yet put a proposal to the foreign secretary that would involve continued payments to the EU during a transition period for a couple of years after the UK leaves the EU, or to other Brexiteers.

    "She has yet to try it on for size with these people", I was told. And sources suggest it will be hard for Mr Johnson to stomach in particular. "I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable," one source said.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41274743

    Surely the message of May will be:

    "Speak loudly and slowly so that foreigners can understand"

    David Allen Green Has a good article on here on 3 speeches this week. If you put the title of an FT article into google, it is readable through the firewall btw:

    https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/908325617749446658
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,367
    Mr P,

    "More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat."

    He should be sent to his room without his supper, and no watching the cartoons for a week.

    Just like Cameron - urbane on the outside, but when he doesn't get his own way, he throws a temper tantrum.
  • HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Mortimer said:

    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

    He is still very active in politics.

    And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
    Yes, all the loonies hate him.
  • HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
    "due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.

    In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.

    And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
    That makes it all fine then, does it? Do such considerations extend to the current day?
    .
  • Mortimer said:

    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

    I think that Osborne's view could be summed up as 'Theresa May isn't a very good Prime Minister for the Conservatives or the UK'
    Would anyone argue with that?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722
    Scott_P said:

    It is one of the great ironies of Brexit that the United Kingdom’s messy divorce from Europe, sold as an effort to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty, has instead delivered its opposite. Last Monday, the House of Commons voted in the early stages of the European Union Withdrawal Bill to give the government sweeping powers to make laws without parliamentary scrutiny. These powers are named after Henry VIII, England’s most authoritarian monarch, but they in fact bear a greater resemblance to Hitler’s Enabling Act of 1933, which allowed the Fuhrer to bypass the Reichstag and govern by proclamation.

    Allusions to Nazi Germany are generally overwrought, but this is no exaggeration: Prime Minister Theresa May does not have an absolute majority in the British Parliament, just as Hitler didn’t in the Reichstag in 1933, which is why she has been forced to resort to his strategy. If the withdrawal bill is passed as it stands, May will be able to make laws by decree and reverse and adapt primary legislation without consulting Parliament. It is the greatest attack on the British constitution in at least a century. Parliamentary sovereignty—the very thing that Brexiteers said they were voting for in leaving the E.U.—may be about to be vastly reduced by a cabal of right-wing Conservatives who say they are obeying the people’s will. Such power grabs, of course, are always done in the name of the people. The full title of the 1933 Enabling Act was “The law to remedy the distress of the people and the state.”


    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/theresa-may-takes-her-darkest-most-desperate-turn-yet

    I doubt if Theresa May intends to carry out the Final Solution.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
  • Political correctness gone mad, a man can't make a joke in private without people getting offended.

    As an aside, I know for a fact Mrs May and her team, when they thought they were the masters of the universe, were much more disobliging about George Osborne (and David Cameron), but George kept his own counsel.

    Any anger George Osborne has towards Mrs May is due to her undoing all the decade long hard work of George Osborne and David Cameron in detoxifying the Tory party and taking them from opposition to government, and being the only leader to win a majority in 25 years, and Mrs May's government being bad for the country.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    What happened in the by-elections? They didn't look very exciting, but as usual mildly curious.
  • Will they count deleted tweets, or will they be counting the tweets that are still up at the end of the week?

    I'd want to analyse his tweet output since the inauguration, rather than just the last 30 days.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
  • What happened in the by-elections? They didn't look very exciting, but as usual mildly curious.

    One Lab hold, one Con gain from UKIP (who didn't stand), and one Con loss to an Indy.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    Hush your mouth.

    The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.

    It's comforting in a way that those who think otherwise are temporarily perhaps no longer with us here on PB.
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    image
  • Political correctness gone mad, a man can't make a joke in private without people getting offended.

    I'm sure you'll be defending Trump and his Pussy-grabbing comments in the same way....
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    You're kidding, right? George Osborne is constantly laughing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017

    Will they count deleted tweets, or will they be counting the tweets that are still up at the end of the week?

    I'd want to analyse his tweet output since the inauguration, rather than just the last 30 days.

    And @AlastairMeeks

    Retweets and deleted tweets count, you can see the long term trend of the frequency of Trump's tweeting behaviour by clicking here

    https://twittercounter.com/realDonaldTrump
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too

    More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat
    Her comments that his remarks were not helpful in preventing attacks and abuse on women were hardly party political particularly. Osborne is now equally loathed by the bulk of the Tory and Labour parties, the only politician of recent times who could perhaps match him on that is Peter Mandelson but Mandelson never had the Heath like grudge Osborne now seems to be having
    And, like Mandelson, a brilliant politician. And now, it seems, newspaper editor.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587

    What happened in the by-elections? They didn't look very exciting, but as usual mildly curious.

    One Lab hold, one Con gain from UKIP (who didn't stand), and one Con loss to an Indy.
    Meh. But thanks!
  • Political correctness gone mad, a man can't make a joke in private without people getting offended.

    I'm sure you'll be defending Trump and his Pussy-grabbing comments in the same way....
    Trump's different, there's evidence of him being a consistent physical menace to women.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited September 2017
    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "More confirmation he is still seen as a political threat."

    He should be sent to his room without his supper, and no watching the cartoons for a week.

    Just like Cameron - urbane on the outside, but when he doesn't get his own way, he throws a temper tantrum.

    Under the circumstances George O seems to me to be acting with extraordinary restraint. It's rare for someone stabbed in the back to be able to get up dust themselves down and watch the stabber self immolate (I'm using hyperbole Felix so don't call the police!).

  • Incident reported on London Tube train
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41278545
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    This PB anti-Osborne group has direct parallels with the deluded Brexiters (could they be related?).

    There has or will be a separation but this groups expects the separated party somehow should retain all the obligations and subservience and respect for the other side.

    Bonkers.
  • Sky reporting explosion on a London underground train
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    Some photos up already of the incident.
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.

    I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.

    He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.

    I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.

    He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
    Yet? Saved by sterling devaluation.
  • Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722

    philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    You're kidding, right? George Osborne is constantly laughing.
    To be fair, he did crack some jokes about President Sarkozy's diminutive stature.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,722

    Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited September 2017
    some off-the cuff thoughts:

    1. could be wires, some sort of det cord, with electrical connectors? out the back of the bag;
    2. something like this device, if a timer, then needs a lot of training;
    3. perhaps a partial with detonator only initiating hence no bigger bang;
    4. new MO if a device, but people are attuned to the famous "unattended bag" scenario; so
    5. might be more challenging for #2; or
    6. perhaps wholly innocent builders' materials
  • Sean_F said:

    Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
    I have absolutely no doubt that if it were made by David Davis you would be loyalty defending him.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,338
    edited September 2017
    Sean_F said:

    Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    It's the sort of comment I would expect from John McDonnell, but not the other two.
    Back in 2005 David Davis privately said he wanted to use his SAS training on all those MPs who defected from him to David Cameron.
  • philiph said:

    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    ydoethur said:

    felix said:

    Scott_P said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hannibal Osborne offers Tories a new psycho drama.

    I never really rated Osborne - I think he was a better Chancellor than Brown, but that's like saying someone is less aggressive than Kim Jong Un. But I am inclined to think given his recent behaviour that sacking him was one of May's unambiguously sensible moves.

    Nadine wants him banned from conference
    Given the nature of the comments made that should be just the start. You need to take your anti-Brexit glasses off and think it through.
    It is worth pointing out that ordinary people have been arrested for making remarks like that on Twitter. Remember the disgruntled traveller who threatened to blow up Nottingham Airport?

    While he may have meant it as a joke, it was a tasteless and unfunny joke (a bit like most of Frankie Boyle's output). If he can't see that, he should keep his mouth shut.
    I think the time for jokes of that nature ended with the murder of Jo Cox.
    It was plainly a joke, and could have been quite a good one in context. It is metaphorical, rather like calling her " a dead woman walking" in June. If George really was planning cannibalism then I suspect he would be more discreet!

    Conference will be popcorn season though.
    Like Ted Heath, when George Osborne makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
    To be fair, Ted Heath did have a sense of humour. One of the characterisations of him was the rather robotic rise and fall of his shoulders as the strangulated laughing noise came out in bursts of sound from his mouth.

    I don't think I have ever seen GO laugh in public.
    Ted Heath also achieved his main policy - Britain joining the EEC.

    I'm not sure what George Osborne would say his political aims were but it doesn't look likely they've been achieved. The slogans he proclaimed "sharing the proceeds of growth", "balance the books", "march of the makers", "we're all in this together" proved to be very empty.

    He's the Shadow Chancellor who failed to predict a recession which happened and the Chancellor who predicted a recession which didn't happen.
    Yet? Saved by sterling devaluation.
    Osborne predicted a recession within 'weeks and months' of a Leave vote.

    He was wrong.

    Now there will be recessions in the future and as its eight years since the last recession ended we are due one on the economic cycle.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635
    edited September 2017

    HYUFD said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.
    "due process"? You're having a laugh. Due sodding process should have occurred decades ago when the alleged abuse was happening. Having it now is all well and good, but it doesn't account for the lives spoilt then and since.

    In fact, time makes it harder to get any justice, as well as allowing more abuse to occur. It also means people who were abused got no help or closure.

    And if you're asking me whether I believe these accusations about Smyllum, then yes, on the whole I do. There's too many voices speaking up about it, too much precedence proved in similar homes and institutions, and the hundreds of children buried in unmarked graves is a rather large pointer to the fact that things in the home were not exactly healthy. I might well be wrong in all this, and it will be interesting to see what the inquiry produces.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    As we are also finding out in the 1970s there were also instances of abuse in boarding schools, by MPs, even by presenters at the BBC, the Catholic Church was not an isolated case in having a minority who abused their position. So yes clearly inexcusable if true but in the 1970s there waa clearly a lot of wrongdoing going on and of course also whether this incident relates to unmarked graves is another matter
    That makes it all fine then, does it? Do such considerations extend to the current day?
    .
    It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635
    edited September 2017

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:

    Mortimer said:

    George has proved all his critics right in the last few months.

    More revealing for me is that he surely plans no future in politics...

    He is still very active in politics.

    And at the top of his game. The vitriol from the Brexiteers is revealing
    It is not just Brexiteers attacking him, Cat Smith, as Corbynista as they come, was pretty scathing about some of his most recent comments in the Commons yesterday too
    Yes, all the loonies hate him.
    Osborne was memorably booed at the 2012 Olympics, he has never been popular and not just with loonies.

    Though I give him credit for the IHT cut which was an excellent move
  • TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    Hush your mouth.

    The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.

    (Snip)
    I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.

    But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.

    And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.

    As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    Hush your mouth.

    The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.

    (Snip)
    I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.

    But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.

    And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.

    As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
    Evidently it's far too early in the morning for my scything wit to be apparent on this here internet thing.
  • HYUFD said:

    It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead

    People are still living with the consequences, and the fact abuse had been going on for decades makes it worse, not better.

    I understand that Catholicism, like all religions, can prove to be a powerful force for good in the lives of millions of people. However that does not excuse it when it commits evil and ruins lives.
  • Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.

    If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.

    And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.

    When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111

    Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.

    If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.

    And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.

    When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
    Was it too much or too little spending that you criticise him for? Or something else?
  • F1: practice starts in 11 minutes. The engine/driver announcements are expected when it finishes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635
    edited September 2017

    HYUFD said:

    It closed over 30 years ago having been going since the mid 19th century and probably all the nuns there are now dead

    People are still living with the consequences, and the fact abuse had been going on for decades makes it worse, not better.

    I understand that Catholicism, like all religions, can prove to be a powerful force for good in the lives of millions of people. However that does not excuse it when it commits evil and ruins lives.
    I am not excusing anything but nothing has been proved as yet, like the BBC presenter allegations, the allegations against former MPs, including very senior ones, allegations against boarding school staff etc dating from that time unless the accused are still alive these are all only things which can be dealt with by full inquiries such as the one now underway in Scotland
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635

    TOPPING said:

    felix said:

    felix said:

    One for @HYUFD and @SeanF :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

    But it's okay. Nothing happened. Please move on.

    It clearly merits investigation as would any such claim. I'm not sure, in itself, it can be taken as definitive proof of anything.
    Well, we'll just have to see what the inquiry comes up with, won't we? There's plenty of evidence that things were not well in Smyllum, as well as known facts from other similar organisations.
    Yes we will have to wait although clearly you'd prefer not to to judge by your final sentence which seems to be focused on smoke and the absence of fire rather than due process.

    But taking the cases that have already been proved in the Catholic and protestant churches: the parallels with the abuse by Muslims in Rotherham, Rochdale et al is clear. In such cases, it was easier for the authorities (police, social services, the respective churches) to ignore abuse than to deal with it. As such, those authorities are as morally culpable for the abuse as the abusers.
    Hush your mouth.

    The fact that there were abuses, seemingly systematic, in the Catholic church has absolutely no bearing on the behaviour, inclination, or proclivities, nor does it betoken any inherent behaviour of any other member of that religion.

    (Snip)
    I never said it did, and I hope you extend that to other religions.

    But you cannot ignore the facts (and they are facts) that there was a rotten illness in parts of the Catholic church. Moving priests accused of abuse (and in many cases later found guilty) to other parishes where they could continue abusing was, and is, sickening, as is the fact that it took until 2010 for the Vatican to say that accusations of abuse by priests should be reported to police.

    And no, the Catholic church was not alone in suffering from this cancer; it just seems it was more widespread and egregious.

    As I continue saying about many areas of public life: bad things will happen, by accident or malice. What matters is addressing them when they do happen, and trying to reduce the chances of them happening again. That's where the churches failed so terribly.
    To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose
  • Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.

    If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.

    And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.

    When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
    I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.

    I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,270
    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.
  • Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.

    If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.

    And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.

    When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
    I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.

    I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
    Think of the abuse he'll get when he is proved to be right in a few years time!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
  • HYUFD said:

    To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose

    I agree, and have said so on here in the past. Pope Francis has been making lots of the right noises on this topic, and some good actions. I hope it continues and he has the strength to progress all cases, for some accusations (e.g. Cardinal Pell) reach very near to the top.

    It's nice to have a pope I actually like and have a modicum of respect for.

    That seems a rather positive note on which to go out for a run!
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,963
    edited September 2017

    Reactions to George Osborne's reported remarks are, as usual, far more revealing about those reacting than the person making the remarks. The reactions would have been entirely different if the reported remarks had been made by John McDonnell, David Davis or Vince Cable about a widely-understood political enemy, according to prior political allegiance.

    So far this morning we've had the suggestion that George Osborne, actually one of the wittier politicians, can't tell a joke and that he's never seen laughing. No doubt we will have more such nonsense before this story has run its course, so deranged is the hatred of him in some quarters.

    Would I have made the analogy he made? No. But I am not George Osborne and I have different flaws. Is it the worst thing ever said in the history of humanity? No. His obsessive critics need to get a grip on themselves. They could start by honestly asking themselves exactly why they hate him so much. Hint: the essential reason is that he shrewdly and clearly articulates what's so flaky about their political aims. The correct response is not to hate him but to address the flakiness.

    IMO George Osborne's record in office is more than enough to condemn him - some of us haven't changed their views over the last 15 months.

    If Osborne was still in a Conservative government some of his critics would be cheering him whilst some of his new fans would be condemning him.

    And Osborne himself would be singing a different tune if May had retained him as Chancellor.

    When it comes down to it 'my side right, your side wrong' is a dominant factor in politics.
    I can understand where you're coming from, though I disagree with a lot of the detail. The fake horror at a few off-the-cuff remarks needs to be called out though.

    I understand that Leavers crave their daily Two Minute Hate. There's no reason to indulge them on it.
    Do Leavers have an irrational hatred of Osborne, or do you have an irrational hatred of Leavers?

    I'm probably what you'd call a loopy Leaver, but I don't hate Osborne. I merely think he was a mediocre Chancellor, lied and abused the power of government in his failed attempt to keep Britain in the EU, and has revealed a seriously nasty side since taking over the Evening Standard.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,270
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
    Well I said on here a few days ago that they're paying people to shove it into people's hands on Waterloo Bridge so it wouldn't be a surprise if Osborne's getting desperate.
  • TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
    Sell more free papers?

    The paper is certainly getting more publicity.
  • TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
    I thought the Standard was free ?

    It had better be or I'm guilty of newspaper theft on Charing Cross Road.
  • TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
    It is a free sheet, though rumours abound that advertising revenues have shot up since George Osborne CH, became Editor.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,635

    HYUFD said:

    To be fair to Pope Francis he has gone further than most of his predecessors in apologising for past wrongs on this and returning the Catholic Church to its proper purpose

    I agree, and have said so on here in the past. Pope Francis has been making lots of the right noises on this topic, and some good actions. I hope it continues and he has the strength to progress all cases, for some accusations (e.g. Cardinal Pell) reach very near to the top.

    It's nice to have a pope I actually like and have a modicum of respect for.

    That seems a rather positive note on which to go out for a run!
    Good we can conclude in agreement on that then
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,111
    edited September 2017

    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    What I find interesting about the Osborne comments is that they came out. Either Osborne wanted them to come out or someone at the Standard doesn't like him.

    Or it is a move calculated to sell more newspapers, currently his day job.
    I thought the Standard was free ?

    It had better be or I'm guilty of newspaper theft on Charing Cross Road.
    my apologies (all of you: ok thanks you pedantic b******s)

    I mean increase circulation => more advertising at better advertising rates.

    sheesh!
  • The value is on Trump completing first term...

    http://www.abitleftandabitlost.com/political-punts.html
This discussion has been closed.