politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s Mueller time

SystemSystem Posts: 12,258
edited October 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s Mueller time

Exclusive: A federal grand jury has approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Mueller https://t.co/ZVvg1WCjMs pic.twitter.com/fXsVZUILni

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,138
    First!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Wasn't Obama a constitutional law professor in his previous life?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,220
    Hannity has taken it well:

    http://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Fox-News-host-Sean-Hannity-has-Twitter-meltdown-12313372.php
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709
    edited October 2017
    "he might start pardoning people before the normal criminal routes have been completed, which might cause Trump even more problems"

    What do we reckon would happen specifically? I mean, his stated position is that the whole thing is a politically-motivated witch-hunt and something something Hillary Clinton. It seems consistent with that to just aggressively pardon everybody. So if he does this, what's anybody going to do about it? I mean, maybe we could try to sue the incompetent cretins who wrote the US constitution, but they're all dead, so what's the next move?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,820
    CarlottaVance said:

    Hannity has taken it well:

    http://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Fox-News-host-Sean-Hannity-has-Twitter-meltdown-12313372.php

    It’s a race to the bottom:
    https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/924477659131691008
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Hannity has taken it well:

    http://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Fox-News-host-Sean-Hannity-has-Twitter-meltdown-12313372.php

    It’s a race to the bottom:
    https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/924477659131691008
    This is the other next step. Trump fires Mueller. They're already setting up the talking points for this with a load of stuff about something something uranium Mueller Hillary Clinton. So say he does, what would anyone do about it? Bearing in mind that the people with the power to do something about is have to answer to Republican primary voters, I reckon they'd say how shocked they are and set up a committee or something.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Hannity has taken it well:

    http://m.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Fox-News-host-Sean-Hannity-has-Twitter-meltdown-12313372.php

    It’s a race to the bottom:
    https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/924477659131691008
    Leaving the rant to one side, it does look like the Uranium One scandal is being reactivated so look squirrel.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    Now there’s a headline that TSE was waiting to write for ages!

    Difficult to see how this plays out, but those who don’t like Trump will take one side and those that do like him will take the other - irrespective of the facts and evidence in each case presented.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Sandpit said:

    Now there’s a headline that TSE was waiting to write for ages!

    Difficult to see how this plays out, but those who don’t like Trump will take one side and those that do like him will take the other - irrespective of the facts and evidence in each case presented.

    The known unknown is how Republicans who don't like Trump will react. My uninformed guess is there may be pressure on Trump not to run in 2020.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now there’s a headline that TSE was waiting to write for ages!

    Difficult to see how this plays out, but those who don’t like Trump will take one side and those that do like him will take the other - irrespective of the facts and evidence in each case presented.

    The known unknown is how Republicans who don't like Trump will react. My uninformed guess is there may be pressure on Trump not to run in 2020.
    There was quite a lot of pressure on him not to run in 2016 as well. That didn't stop him. Indeed, he seemed to thrive on it as it allowed his supporters to kid themselves they were votin against the establishment by voting for a billionaire dodgy property dealer who is a friend of the Clintons.

    If he is implicated directly, or if he is alleged to be using his power to obstruct justice, and if the Dems do well in the midterms, he may be impeached.

    And if pigs could fly we'd all carry much heavier duty umbrellas.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now there’s a headline that TSE was waiting to write for ages!

    Difficult to see how this plays out, but those who don’t like Trump will take one side and those that do like him will take the other - irrespective of the facts and evidence in each case presented.

    The known unknown is how Republicans who don't like Trump will react. My uninformed guess is there may be pressure on Trump not to run in 2020.
    Watching Bill Maher’s show yesterday, one of the commentators there suggested quite the opposite - that Steve Bannon and friends have a $1bn fighting fund that’s intended to primary any Republicans that are not singing from Trump’s hymn sheet. He suggested that this was behind the senators who announced their retirements last week, and that the GOP was in serious danger of been taken over by Trump.

    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    edited October 2017
    Sandpit said:


    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.

    I know Trump keeps threatening to lock up his domestic political opponents, but has he threatened to hang them yet?

    If not I feel that the comparison is unfair to the egregious Mr Trump.

    Or do his repeated threats to obliterate North Korea count?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edmundintokyo said:

    "he might start pardoning people before the normal criminal routes have been completed, which might cause Trump even more problems"

    What do we reckon would happen specifically? I mean, his stated position is that the whole thing is a politically-motivated witch-hunt and something something Hillary Clinton. It seems consistent with that to just aggressively pardon everybody. So if he does this, what's anybody going to do about it? I mean, maybe we could try to sue the incompetent cretins who wrote the US constitution, but they're all dead, so what's the next move?

    +1
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Ftpt
    SeanT said:

    Sean_F said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Why is politics populated by people with massively over-active libidos?

    Politics attracts people who enjoy taking risks.
    Success in most fields is directly correlated with testosterone levels.

    Doesn't excuse - but it explains. Alpha males behave like alpha males, wherever they are (and whatever species they are)

    The concept of alpha males is total bollocks. The biologist who coined the term and wrote the book about it has completely repudiated the term as he realises he made massive mistakes in categorising behaviour.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    We don't even have a guarantee that the charges are being brought against an US individual, or even an individual person. It could be against a foreign corporation. But my betting is Manafort.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    Alistair said:

    The concept of alpha males is total bollocks.

    Alistair, please tell me that wasn't deliberate.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:


    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.

    I know Trump keeps threatening to lock up his domestic political opponents, but has he threatened to hang them yet?

    If not I feel that the comparison is unfair to the egregious Mr Trump.

    Or do his repeated threats to obliterate North Korea count?
    Politicians in the USA aren't at serious risk of being locked up. In Spain, Carles Puigdemont risks 30 years imprisonment if he stays in the country and doesn't go into exile to a country that has no extradition treaty with Spain. He should be aware of the fate of his predecessor Lluís Companys.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406
    MTimT said:

    We don't even have a guarantee that the charges are being brought against an US individual, or even an individual person. It could be against a foreign corporation. But my betting is Manafort.

    He’s definitely in a tricky spot.
    The commentary I have read suggests that it will be the small fish first- hope to get them to implicate the bigger players.

    From a betting perspective what I would like to get a handle on is how long will this process take?
    I’ve been laying a 2018 Trump exit - (at 3.5 atm) - but perhaps that’s when the shit will really hit the fan?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.

    Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.

    I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?
  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265
    There is a fine line between flirtatious flattery and harrassment, and I have been on the receiving end of both. (Yes I did say that - as a man).

    I had a secretary a few years ago who whenever she wanted something approved would touch me on the shoulder and slowly run her hands down my chest while looking me straight in the eyes while asking her request. She was gorgeous and therefore it was acceptable to me - But I think I would get in a lot of trouble if I did the same in reverse.

    Another time a middle aged teacher (when I was doing some evening language classes) kept inviting me back to her appartment to 'help her plug in her stereo'. I declined but one of my colleagues innocently took her up on her offer a few weeks later. As he was fiddling with the phono jacks (honestly) she offered him a glass of wine and when she came back with it she was half naked.... He was a happliy married man and ran away. He didnt report her out of embarrassment and was terrified of his wife finding out that he got into that position in the first place.

    It goes on everywhere - in both directions.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    edited October 2017
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:


    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.

    I know Trump keeps threatening to lock up his domestic political opponents, but has he threatened to hang them yet?

    If not I feel that the comparison is unfair to the egregious Mr Trump.

    Or do his repeated threats to obliterate North Korea count?
    Politicians in the USA aren't at serious risk of being locked up. In Spain, Carles Puigdemont risks 30 years imprisonment if he stays in the country and doesn't go into exile to a country that has no extradition treaty with Spain. He should be aware of the fate of his predecessor Lluís Companys.

    This is a good point - presumably any European or Latin American country is ruled out on that basis? What about Morocco?

    It would be insane if the Spanish government to prosecute him, never mind lock him up, still more to extradite him first - so we must assume they would do it.

    Edit - that said I don't think even Rajoy is thick enough to shoot him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    edited October 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    MTimT said:

    We don't even have a guarantee that the charges are being brought against an US individual, or even an individual person. It could be against a foreign corporation. But my betting is Manafort.

    He’s definitely in a tricky spot.
    The commentary I have read suggests that it will be the small fish first- hope to get them to implicate the bigger players.

    From a betting perspective what I would like to get a handle on is how long will this process take?
    I’ve been laying a 2018 Trump exit - (at 3.5 atm) - but perhaps that’s when the shit will really hit the fan?
    That’s a good point. The way that “justice” often works in these cases in the US, is that they start with a minor player and suggest to him that he’s looking at 50-life for treason - but if he “helps out” then he’ll be charged instead with failing to shuffle paper clips correctly and might be looking at six months’ probation.

    I still doubt they’ve got enough to impeach Trump himself. He’s not stupid always had good lawyers.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    Sandpit said:

    A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.

    Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.

    I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?

    Alternatively, bromide in the Westminster tea?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    edited October 2017
    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406
    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    I think his pardon only works for federal crimes - I’ve read that Mueller is trying to get prosecutions for state crimes as well to prevent Trump Just pardoning everyone...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    Good morning, my fellow Britons.

    Mr. Mark, Trump's time in office is certainly an interesting one.

    F1: wrote the qualifying half of the pre-race stuff yesterday, and will give the numbers a look today. Surprised that, Mercedes aside, there are lots of big intra-team gaps. Even Renault, who line up 8th and 9th, have three-tenths between them.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    edited October 2017
    Sandpit said:

    A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.

    Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.

    I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?

    Aren't they already directly employed? My recollection is that I got to choose my staff, but they were all employed and paid directly by the House of Commons. But I don't recall any significant Human Resources function, and because appointments are made by the MP, who is largely unsackable, such a department would struggle to impose sanctions on the MP or transfer the staff member to a safer position.

    So perhaps the answer is to have a professional staff who serve MPs in a civil service style way. This would have several additional advantages:

    * MPs' staff would not lose their jobs when the MP lost
    * Over the years they would become really expert at casework and research, while currently each MP brings in new people who have to learn the ropes
    * The temptation for MPs to appoint loyalists and then use them on Parliamentary time for political work (as I'm sure is done by many) would be removed.

    MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    My understanding is that people are only pardoned after they are convicted. The presidential power is not used to stop investigation.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/presidents-pardon-power-works
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MTimT said:

    We don't even have a guarantee that the charges are being brought against an US individual, or even an individual person. It could be against a foreign corporation. But my betting is Manafort.

    He’s definitely in a tricky spot.
    The commentary I have read suggests that it will be the small fish first- hope to get them to implicate the bigger players.

    From a betting perspective what I would like to get a handle on is how long will this process take?
    I’ve been laying a 2018 Trump exit - (at 3.5 atm) - but perhaps that’s when the shit will really hit the fan?
    That’s a good point. The way that “justice” often works in these cases in the US, is that they start with a minor player and suggest to him that he’s looking at 50-life for treason - but if he “helps out” then he’ll be charged instead with failing to shuffle paper clips correctly and might be looking at six months’ probation.

    I still doubt they’ve got enough to impeach Trump himself. He’s not stupid always had good lawyers.
    On impeachment all that matters is what Congress thinks.
    I mean they tried to get Clinton on lying... a bar I think we can say Trump has met pretty comfortably.
    The question is what will convince congressional republicans to put country before party.
    Or just wait until the public puts the democrats in charge.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    edited October 2017
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, my fellow Britons.

    Mr. Mark, Trump's time in office is certainly an interesting one.

    F1: wrote the qualifying half of the pre-race stuff yesterday, and will give the numbers a look today. Surprised that, Mercedes aside, there are lots of big intra-team gaps. Even Renault, who line up 8th and 9th, have three-tenths between them.

    Betfair markets taking a while to get going on the race, a couple of standouts:
    Hamilton 1.12 to finish the race - he’s 17 from 17 so far this season.
    Vettel to finish the race LAY 1.25
    Verstappen 3.6 to win
    Safety car 1.55 - possibly just about value at that price but looking for 1.66-1.75
    Lead first lap Verstappen at 4 and Hamilton at 8.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    The concept of alpha males is total bollocks.

    Alistair, please tell me that wasn't deliberate.
    Lol - indeed surely that is the perfect definition of an alpha male!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    Iceland possibly next domino to fall to left-wing youth wave:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iceland-election/iceland-leans-toward-leftist-government-in-latest-vote-count-idUSKBN1CY005?il=0

    but the official website (which shows 207% of the votes counted, duh) seems to show the left falling short of 32 - they'd need the Centre Party:

    http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2017/

    Quite impressive that the scandal-hit Independence Party are not doing that badly - perhaps shows that if the economy is doing well, many voters will forgive anything.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,879
    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.

    Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.

    I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?

    Aren't they already directly employed? My recollection is that I got to choose my staff, but they were all employed and paid directly by the House of Commons. But I don't recall any significant Human Resources function, and because appointments are made by the MP, who is largely unsackable, such a department would struggle to impose sanctions on the MP or transfer the staff member to a safer position.

    So perhaps the answer is to have a professional staff who serve MPs in a civil service style way. This would have several additional advantages:

    * MPs' staff would not lose their jobs when the MP lost
    * Over the years they would become really expert at casework and research, while currently each MP brings in new people who have to learn the ropes
    * The temptation for MPs to appoint loyalists and then use them on Parliamentary time for political work (as I'm sure is done by many) would be removed.

    MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
    Many of us, certainly in the NHS, don’t get to choose our support staff. Not to that extent, anyway.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,350
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:


    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.

    I know Trump keeps threatening to lock up his domestic political opponents, but has he threatened to hang them yet?

    If not I feel that the comparison is unfair to the egregious Mr Trump.

    Or do his repeated threats to obliterate North Korea count?
    Depends how closely aligned you think Trump is with his comic book Fascist erstwhile advisor.

    'Former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka suggested Thursday night that if the Obama administration’s Uranium One deal had taken place in the 1950s, those involved might have been executed.
    “If this had happened in the 1950s, there would be people up on treason charges right now. The Rosenbergs, okay? This is equivalent to what the Rosenbergs did, and those people got the chair,” Gorka said on Fox News Thursday night.'

    http://tinyurl.com/y9j3wzxu

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    edited October 2017
    foxinsoxuk said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    My understanding is that people are only pardoned after they are convicted. The presidential power is not used to stop investigation.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/presidents-pardon-power-works
    But the highlighted case of former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggests that what has "usually" gone before has already been thrown out the window.

    It would be quite easy to see Trump saying

    "Look, these people on my Pardon list, I know them, they are good people. They have done nothing wrong. If they get charged, it's all political. So I have no problem in giving them an immediate pardon, from any federal offences related to the 2016 election camapign. The other side were the ones doing the dirty tricks. But I'm a generous man. If the prosecutor wants to charge them - I'll pardon them too. We just need too move on, stop wasting Government resources on this, and instead start bringing rapists and drug-dealers to courts. They are the real criminals in our country - and they are getting away with it, while prosecutors run around trying to make charges stick on good, patriotic Americans...."

    His base would buy that.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    As I understand it if he pre-emptively pardons people and they accept then they can no longer take the 5th as they have admitted guilt and there is no longer the possibility of self incrimination.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    Mr. Sandpit, I was planning on checking the lead lap 1 markets during my vague perusal. Already backed Verstappen to win at 5, and content with that.

    Agree Hamilton is very likely to finish but I do dislike odds that tight.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    ?

    Aren't they already directly employed? My recollection is that I got to choose my staff, but they were all employed and paid directly by the House of Commons. But I don't recall any significant Human Resources function, and because appointments are made by the MP, who is largely unsackable, such a department would struggle to impose sanctions on the MP or transfer the staff member to a safer position.

    So perhaps the answer is to have a professional staff who serve MPs in a civil service style way. This would have several additional advantages:

    * MPs' staff would not lose their jobs when the MP lost
    * Over the years they would become really expert at casework and research, while currently each MP brings in new people who have to learn the ropes
    * The temptation for MPs to appoint loyalists and then use them on Parliamentary time for political work (as I'm sure is done by many) would be removed.

    MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
    A good perspective from an insider, thanks Nick.

    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    Theuniondivvie said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:


    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.

    I know Trump keeps threatening to lock up his domestic political opponents, but has he threatened to hang them yet?

    If not I feel that the comparison is unfair to the egregious Mr Trump.

    Or do his repeated threats to obliterate North Korea count?
    Depends how closely aligned you think Trump is with his comic book Fascist erstwhile advisor.

    'Former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka suggested Thursday night that if the Obama administration’s Uranium One deal had taken place in the 1950s, those involved might have been executed.
    “If this had happened in the 1950s, there would be people up on treason charges right now. The Rosenbergs, okay? This is equivalent to what the Rosenbergs did, and those people got the chair,” Gorka said on Fox News Thursday night.'

    http://tinyurl.com/y9j3wzxu

    So he has. Thanks for the information.

    In that case I withdraw my question to Sandpit - Trump and Momentum are obviously directly comparable.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    Taking a step back for a second does anybody seriously believe that Russia had a material influence on the US election? They may well have spread some salacious gossip and may well have made some of it up but compared to the efforts of both campaigns it was chickfeed.

    Unless you reject that premise the current investigation is just the continuation of politics by other means. Bill Clinton had 8 years of this and it did not stop him leaving office as a popular President. I am not sure about popular but I would be pretty confident that this is not going to bring Trump down.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    I think such behavior is more common in systems where patronage and "networking" are the methods of career progression, hence the stories that we hear of in the world of entertainment, media and politics. Of the latter we had perhaps the most egregious case so far in the LDs with Chris Rennard.

    I note that the legal eagles are not immune to this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/10/law-firm-partner-says-no-more-briefs-for-linkedin-sexism-row-barrister

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    Mr. Meeks, indeed. It's interesting the focus is solely on male on female harassment when that report from a year or two ago found the majority of those who were subject to unwanted advances in Westminster were male, though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    F1: just two other things I suddenly remembered from yesterday. The run to the first corner is very long, so more advantage if you start well, and woe unending if you start poorly. Also, Hamilton's exhaust, I think, kept hesitating, causing temporary loss of power. If he gets that off the start line...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    Alistair said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    As I understand it if he pre-emptively pardons people and they accept then they can no longer take the 5th as they have admitted guilt and there is no longer the possibility of self incrimination.
    But I'm suggesting he would basically say "go through the process if you want, Mr Prosecutor, turn the entire machinery of the State on these good people if you want - spend years dragging them through the mud - but it is a huge waste of resources, because here is their Pardon...." (and in the meantime, they will all plead the Fifth....)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    Sandpit said:



    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).

    Well, quite, and it's not an exaggeration. When I lost I got a good payoff (it's since been reduced) but all my staff lost their jobs with statutory redundancy pay and at least one was in serious difficulty for a bit. Your idea sounds a good solution.

    Caseworkers vary in why they do it, but for most I think it's a mixture of personal and political loyalty to the MP and interest in the work. I had one part-timer, a former librarian, who has to work from home to look after her partner. She was a brillint caseworker and never wanted to do anything else: this gave her a chance to use her skills which were otherwise atrophing. None of my team went on to do anything new political, though a couple carried on with what they were already doing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Meeks, indeed. It's interesting the focus is solely on male on female harassment when that report from a year or two ago found the majority of those who were subject to unwanted advances in Westminster were male, though.

    Even in Hollywood, Mr. Dancer, there are notorious senior female execs who are very, very predatory.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    I think such behavior is more common in systems where patronage and "networking" are the methods of career progression, hence the stories that we hear of in the world of entertainment, media and politics. Of the latter we had perhaps the most egregious case so far in the LDs with Chris Rennard.

    I note that the legal eagles are not immune to this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/10/law-firm-partner-says-no-more-briefs-for-linkedin-sexism-row-barrister

    Now that pun clearly wasn't intended, but it's none the less awful for that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Meeks, indeed. It's interesting the focus is solely on male on female harassment when that report from a year or two ago found the majority of those who were subject to unwanted advances in Westminster were male, though.

    Was it from other men though?

    I was hit on by quite a few men when younger and better looking, once by a boss when I was working in a fast food outlet, but never in a threatening way.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    Mr. Mark, indeed. I'm sure it's mostly men, but the willingness of the media to have men cast as perpetrators and women cast as victims distorts reality.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't know. My guess would be (at least mostly) yes, simply because there are more men in Westminster and men are likelier to commit crimes (as an aside, it'd be amusing if it weren't serious that generalising about things men collectively fail at is acceptable in modern discourse, but praising men generally or generalising about female failures will get you jumped on).
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    Sandpit said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    ?

    Aren't they already directly employed? My recollection is that I got to choose my staff, but they were all employed and paid directly by the House of Commons. But I don't recall any significant Human Resources function, and because appointments are made by the MP, who is largely unsackable, such a department would struggle to impose sanctions on the MP or transfer the staff member to a safer position.

    So perhaps the answer is to have a professional staff who serve MPs in a civil service style way. This would have several additional advantages:

    * MPs' staff would not lose their jobs when the MP lost
    * Over the years they would become really expert at casework and research, while currently each MP brings in new people who have to learn the ropes
    * The temptation for MPs to appoint loyalists and then use them on Parliamentary time for political work (as I'm sure is done by many) would be removed.

    MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
    A good perspective from an insider, thanks Nick.

    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MarqueeMark said:

    Alistair said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    I wouldn't put it past Trump to give a blanket pardon to dozens of named people who worked with his campaign, justifying (to himself at least) that it is a Democrat witch-hunt aimed at destabilising Government. Just leave nobody for the Prosecutors to name.

    He could do that from the Oval Office today.

    As I understand it if he pre-emptively pardons people and they accept then they can no longer take the 5th as they have admitted guilt and there is no longer the possibility of self incrimination.
    But I'm suggesting he would basically say "go through the process if you want, Mr Prosecutor, turn the entire machinery of the State on these good people if you want - spend years dragging them through the mud - but it is a huge waste of resources, because here is their Pardon...." (and in the meantime, they will all plead the Fifth....)
    It doesn't really match with all his" lock her up" meme of his campaign.

    An interesting bit here on how Russian troll farms are now interested in #Catalonia

    https://twitter.com/SarahLudford/status/924411520758542337?s=09

    Whatever the role of the individuals that Mueller is investigating, the whole story needs covering. We cannot just accept foreign manipulation of our elections unchallenged.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    foxinsoxuk said:


    It doesn't really match with all his" lock her up" meme of his campaign.

    You expect consistency?

    From Trump??

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Mark, indeed. I'm sure it's mostly men, but the willingness of the media to have men cast as perpetrators and women cast as victims distorts reality.

    Dr. Foxinsox, I don't know. My guess would be (at least mostly) yes, simply because there are more men in Westminster and men are likelier to commit crimes (as an aside, it'd be amusing if it weren't serious that generalising about things men collectively fail at is acceptable in modern discourse, but praising men generally or generalising about female failures will get you jumped on).

    Perhaps also men who are propositioned by powerful women are less likely to feel threatened than when the roles are reversed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    I think such behavior is more common in systems where patronage and "networking" are the methods of career progression, hence the stories that we hear of in the world of entertainment, media and politics. Of the latter we had perhaps the most egregious case so far in the LDs with Chris Rennard.

    I note that the legal eagles are not immune to this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/10/law-firm-partner-says-no-more-briefs-for-linkedin-sexism-row-barrister

    There are lots of sexual shenanigans and relationships in Parliament House between advocates. I get told about this in the Pub since I am normally fairly oblivious to it. Some of the relationships, particularly between male seniors and female juniors looking for work look pretty predatory to me but the direction of predation is not always obvious. Factors that seem to me to be quite common in these kinds of scenarios are:

    -self employed or unsupervised people. Having an affair whilst filling in a time sheet must be tricky.

    -a splash of money which facilitates assignations etc

    -a high pressure job involving a lot of stress. I don't regard this as an excuse or even a reason but a basis for self indulgence as are alcohol and drugs. People persuade themselves they "deserve" it.

    -massive egos and more than the average level of selfishness.

    Politicians tick a lot of these boxes as do sports stars, actors, producers etc. Lawyers are indeed not exempt.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    Mr. F, perhaps. I read on Martin Daubney's Twitter feed that a story about this sort of thing had 63% of women unlikely to report harassment, against 79% of men. As per domestic violence, men are less likely to come forward and less likely to get a sympathetic hearing if they do.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    It also shows a complete lack of dignity.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,336
    edmundintokyo said:

    "he might start pardoning people before the normal criminal routes have been completed, which might cause Trump even more problems"

    What do we reckon would happen specifically? I mean, his stated position is that the whole thing is a politically-motivated witch-hunt and something something Hillary Clinton. It seems consistent with that to just aggressively pardon everybody. So if he does this, what's anybody going to do about it? I mean, maybe we could try to sue the incompetent cretins who wrote the US constitution, but they're all dead, so what's the next move?

    I was thinking electoral problems/perceptions, they say Ford lost the 1976 election the moment he pardoned Nixon.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. F, perhaps. I read on Martin Daubney's Twitter feed that a story about this sort of thing had 63% of women unlikely to report harassment, against 79% of men. As per domestic violence, men are less likely to come forward and less likely to get a sympathetic hearing if they do.

    Actually, I do remember some case about 15 years ago in the States, in which a man successfully sued his female boss for sexual harassment, and the panel on Any Questions thought it hilarious.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    edited October 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    "he might start pardoning people before the normal criminal routes have been completed, which might cause Trump even more problems"

    What do we reckon would happen specifically? I mean, his stated position is that the whole thing is a politically-motivated witch-hunt and something something Hillary Clinton. It seems consistent with that to just aggressively pardon everybody. So if he does this, what's anybody going to do about it? I mean, maybe we could try to sue the incompetent cretins who wrote the US constitution, but they're all dead, so what's the next move?

    I was thinking electoral problems/perceptions, they say Ford lost the 1976 election the moment he pardoned Nixon.
    I think it is impossible to really understand Trump without knowing whether he intends to run again in 2020. If he doesn't, he has an extremely free hand.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    Sean_F said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. F, perhaps. I read on Martin Daubney's Twitter feed that a story about this sort of thing had 63% of women unlikely to report harassment, against 79% of men. As per domestic violence, men are less likely to come forward and less likely to get a sympathetic hearing if they do.

    Actually, I do remember some case about 15 years ago in the States, in which a man successfully sued his female boss for sexual harassment, and the panel on Any Questions thought it hilarious.
    That was the premise of Michael Crichton's book Disclosure which was considerably better than the film in exploring the law/politics on this in the US.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,504
    Amber Rudd + Boris double act?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027963/Amber-Rudd-backs-Boris-Johnson-PM.html
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,375
    In engineering the first challenge for the would-be sexual predator is to find a female engineer to hit on.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    I think such behavior is more common in systems where patronage and "networking" are the methods of career progression, hence the stories that we hear of in the world of entertainment, media and politics. Of the latter we had perhaps the most egregious case so far in the LDs with Chris Rennard.

    I note that the legal eagles are not immune to this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/10/law-firm-partner-says-no-more-briefs-for-linkedin-sexism-row-barrister

    Nothing in that story constitutes sexual harassment, though.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,763
    Donald Trump will surely be running again so long as he is out of pocket by then.

    One term presidents are Losers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    edited October 2017
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    ?

    .
    A good perspective from an insider, thanks Nick.

    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
    I understand your point but will disagree with it. The job of an MP is quite different from the job of an oil rig worker or firefighter. It’s not particularly uncommon in business to travel with your spouse if there are functions to attend, and while these things are gradually changing there’s still a long way to go.

    As I understand it MPs also have much higher divorce rates than the general population, if travelling with their wife rather than their secretary keeps their eyes on the job, then all the better for everyone. Providing of course that the spouse is actually doing the job for which she’s being paid.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    edited October 2017
    Sandpit said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    ?

    .
    A good perspective from an insider, thanks Nick.

    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).
    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
    I understand your point but will disagree with it. The job of an MP is quite different from the job of an oil rig worker or firefighter. It’s not particularly uncommon in business to travel with your spouse if there are functions to attend, and while these things are gradually changing there’s still a long way to go.

    As I understand it MPs also have much higher divorce rates than the general population, if travelling with their wife rather than their secretary keeps their eyes on the job, then all the better for everyone. Providing of course that the spouse is actually doing the job for which she’s being paid.
    We'll have to disagree. If MPs can't keep it in their trousers unless their wife is working for them, then they clearly are unemployable and shouldn't be anywhere near normal human beings.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,879
    edited October 2017
    SandyRentool said:

    In engineering the first challenge for the would-be sexual predator is to find a female engineer to hit on.

    When I was a student around 1960 there was one lone female student in the Engineering Dept. (Marine, Electrical, Civil, Mechanical)
    She seemed to be normally squired round the department by one or other of the younger lecturers.
    Pharmacy was about 33% female, so we were a bit bemused by the attention she got.
    However, long years later I’m about to start on a project with a female engineer. (another ‘senior’)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,350
    rottenborough said:

    Amber Rudd + Boris double act?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027963/Amber-Rudd-backs-Boris-Johnson-PM.html

    So, she does trust him to drive her home after a party now?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,587
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:


    A good perspective from an insider, thanks Nick.

    These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.

    I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.

    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).

    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
    I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,609
    rottenborough said:

    Amber Rudd + Boris double act?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5027963/Amber-Rudd-backs-Boris-Johnson-PM.html

    That comes with a lot of ifs, Rudd will apparently only back Boris if May goes before Brexit and if she gets to be Chancellor.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,484
    NickPalmer said:

    Sandpit said:

    A very interesting exchange between SeanT and Cyclefree at the end of the last thread, if anyone missed it.

    Allegations against named MPs in the Sundays look relatively minor so far, those looking for a couple more Harvey Weinsteins are going to be disappointed. Out of order and deserving of censure certainly, but I’m not sure what’s written so far is going to produce any by-elections.

    I do wonder if this might lead to MPs’ staff being employed by Parliament directly, with an HR structure in place that might allow such incidents to be dealt with more appropriately?

    Aren't they already directly employed? My recollection is that I got to choose my staff, but they were all employed and paid directly by the House of Commons. But I don't recall any significant Human Resources function, and because appointments are made by the MP, who is largely unsackable, such a department would struggle to impose sanctions on the MP or transfer the staff member to a safer position.

    So perhaps the answer is to have a professional staff who serve MPs in a civil service style way. This would have several additional advantages:

    * MPs' staff would not lose their jobs when the MP lost
    * Over the years they would become really expert at casework and research, while currently each MP brings in new people who have to learn the ropes
    * The temptation for MPs to appoint loyalists and then use them on Parliamentary time for political work (as I'm sure is done by many) would be removed.

    MPs would really not like it, as it's much nicer to appoint people you know and trust than have some random civil servant assigned to you, and implementation would be a nightmare, as thousands of existing staff would be at risk of losing jobs, but it could be phased in over 15 years, say.
    What is also needed is someone independent to whom staff can whistleblow in confidence and who has the strength, integrity and independence to investigate such allegations. Without that such behaviour will always go under the radar. Not at all convinced that MPs would welcome this, though.
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Men who gave the type of workplace harassment described in the papers have no place in Parliament. It shows a basic lack of respect for others in a power relationship.

    It shows a basic lack of respect for others.

    I am aware of one very senior female executive in a largely male dominated institution who would say wholly inappropriate things to more junior men, in one case to someone who was seeking promotion from her. The men felt very very uncomfortable but did not speak up. The executive also bullied her female staff, at least one of whom left as a result. This sort of behaviour is not limited to men but it is wrong whoever does it.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712

    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,609
    edited October 2017
    Sandpit said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Now there’s a headline that TSE was waiting to write for ages!

    Difficult to see how this plays out, but those who don’t like Trump will take one side and those that do like him will take the other - irrespective of the facts and evidence in each case presented.

    The known unknown is how Republicans who don't like Trump will react. My uninformed guess is there may be pressure on Trump not to run in 2020.
    Watching Bill Maher’s show yesterday, one of the commentators there suggested quite the opposite - that Steve Bannon and friends have a $1bn fighting fund that’s intended to primary any Republicans that are not singing from Trump’s hymn sheet. He suggested that this was behind the senators who announced their retirements last week, and that the GOP was in serious danger of been taken over by Trump.

    Obviously there’s no parallels there with Labour and Momentum in the UK - none whatsoever.
    One of those retiring Senators, Jeff Flake from Arizona, has already refused to rule out challenging Trump in the 2020 GOP primaries.
    http://nypost.com/2017/10/24/jeff-flake-wont-rule-out-taking-on-trump-in-2020-primary/

    While Trump would almost certainly beat him that would be a good omen for the Democrats, no President who has faced a significant primary challenge in the last 50 years has been re-elected. For example George Bush Snr lost to Bill Clinton after being challenged by Pat Buchanan in 1992 and Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan after being challenged by Ted Kennedy in 1980, Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter after being challenged by Ronald Reagan in 1976 and LBJ was forced to abandon his re-election bid in 1968 after being challenged by Eugene McCarthy and his VP, Hubert Humphrey, was then beaten by Richard Nixon in November.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,879
    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Don't you have last years?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    Owen Jones is so uncool he's difficult to like and so predictable he's difficult to find interesting.

    Does anyone know how he managed to become so popular with the media?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    I bought one yesterday from Sainsbury's foyer.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,720
    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    A couple of years ago in Luton, the police had to break up a fight between a group of drunken Poles who were attacking each other with frozen turnips.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,072
    F1: hmm. Struggling to find anything I like. Annoyed at Ricciardo for not driving more quickly.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,484
    NickPalmer said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:



    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).

    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
    I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
    Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.

    There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    The RBL were flogging them in Sainsbury's Cannock yesterday.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,350
    Roger said:

    Owen Jones is so uncool he's difficult to like and so predictable he's difficult to find interesting.

    Does anyone know how he managed to become so popular with the media?

    Assiduous rentagobbery and the abilty to produce a facile opinion on demand? Seems to work for all points of the politcal compass.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    Alanbrooke said:

    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    Swedes are not turnips! Do you mean that southerners used swedes? Can't remember seeing that but maybe I'm too young.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
    When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?

    Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,609
    edited October 2017
    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?

    Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
    Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    Cyclefree said:

    NickPalmer said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:



    I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
    Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.

    There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
    Whilst I agree with you the converse is also true. As a happily married man I have always been careful not to put myself in positions where temptation and opportunity combine, especially where drink is involved. If I was to be working in such a scenario I would very much prefer it was with my wife or, frankly, another bloke.
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    Cyclefree said:

    NickPalmer said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Sandpit said:



    How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.

    Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, so that as an MP your staffers are ‘from’ your party and believe in the same things you do? I’ve always thought of it as particularly bad when an MP retires or is defeated and takes a very nice pay-off, while their young researcher gets redundancy pay and told to go and find someone else to work for (I exaggerate a little, but you know what I mean).

    Why is an MP working away in London any different from an oil rig worker, a Day Crewing Plus firefighter or any other poor sap who has to work away? I don't get to employ my wife on the tax payer's quid just because I spend up to 5 x 24h days a week at a fire station. MPs need to stop thinking they are above us all.
    I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day 7*24, some of them quite desperate, and you really need an assistant to avoid keeping people waiting; that ideally means someone who shares your home. But I think the more usual reason is simply the level of trust involved (I don't think the pay is a big factor - an assistant will IIRC typically get maybe £4000/year for 1 day/week). The comparison is more with small businesses, where spouse partnerships are common and it would be odd to require by law that you replace your spouse with a stranger.
    Lots of jobs require the employment of someone you can trust and 24/7 coverage and may even involve working from home. With all the technology that permits instant coverage and connection remotely, the argument that only a spouse can do it is less and less plausible, frankly. A spouse may be the best person for the job but only if they really are and not just because they are married to the MP.

    There is far too much rationalisation going on, by MPs, by oafish sexual predators, by fraudsters and the rest seeking to justify by whatever peg they can hang their threadbare argument on behaviour that they want to do.
    It is quite bizarre how many people on here want to treat MPs as a special case. No wonder we've ended up with such a piss poor bunch in Westminster.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
    When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
    I was listening to R4 in the car last week where the presenter claimed Halloween has now become the biggest retail event in the year after Christmas
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,518
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?

    Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
    Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
    :+1:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
    A swede is the basis for Neeps, which I tend to only eat on Burns night. It has softer skin. I wouldn't fancy trying to make a lantern out of that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,255
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?

    Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
    Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
    You missed out Black Friday....

    *shudder*
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,712
    ydoethur said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    Swedes are not turnips! Do you mean that southerners used swedes? Can't remember seeing that but maybe I'm too young.
    nah the southern english call white turnip turnip and yellow turnip swede

    I suppose we should be thankful they havent adopted rutabaga

    however what did you do in Wales at Halloween, were you the same as Ireland and Scotland ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,214
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    DavidL said:

    Alanbrooke said:


    time to save the turnip


    https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/10/29/this-halloween-spare-a-thought-for-the-forgotten-turnip/

    where's malc ?

    We always had turnips as kids but Tescos seem to sell nothing but pumpkins at this time of year now. I can't remember when it changed but it was a part of the increasing commercialisation of Halloween maybe 20 years ago. When my kids were younger we would have 40-80 kids from the village at the door supposedly trick or treating but the tradition here was you still had to tell a joke or sing a song for a sweet.
    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    but as the comments in the article say, it wasnt half hard work hollowing them out !
    When I was a lad, Halloween involved chucking a couple of eggs at houses of a few people we didn't like, a bit of hedge jumping and the closest we got to knocking on doors was a bit of knock and run. How the heck has Halloween become so commercialised today?
    It was never like that in Scotland. We had guising, where kids dressed up and went around the doors telling jokes, singing songs, even doing a dance in exchange for small gifts of sweets. This tradition still continues in our village but not so much in the cities where people are understandably more anxious about kids wandering around on their own in the dark.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,609
    MarqueeMark said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Totally O/T but i notice that BBC people onTV are all wearing poppies, but I haven’t seen any for sale yet.

    Rather like Christmas, they’re starting earlier every year. Surely 1st November is a fair starting point?

    Living abroad in a city full of British expats, it’s amazing how many conversations in early November start with the poppy. It’s the same one I’ve had for three years now, I just make sure it gets put away in a safe place.
    Halloween first, then Bonfire Night, then poppies and Remembrance Sunday, then Advent, then Christmas, in that order.
    You missed out Black Friday....

    *shudder*
    A bit of a damp squib here compared to the USA as it is meant to be the day after Thanksgiving which we don't have here.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,355
    Good morning, my fellow "Disputed" PBers :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,157
    Alanbrooke said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Likewise we always used turnips ( swede to the heathen southerners )

    Swedes are not turnips! Do you mean that southerners used swedes? Can't remember seeing that but maybe I'm too young.
    nah the southern english call white turnip turnip and yellow turnip swede

    I suppose we should be thankful they havent adopted rutabaga

    however what did you do in Wales at Halloween, were you the same as Ireland and Scotland ?
    We used pumpkins!

    (Although it should be noted I grew up on the English side of the border, so my recollections of Wales itself are from when I moved there in my teens.)

    Never heard of swedes being called 'yellow turnips' before. What do you call mangolds then?

    Anyway, I have to dash. Have a good morning.
This discussion has been closed.