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 » Re-shuffle speculation isn’t good for a Government and moves t

SystemSystem Posts: 12,257
edited January 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Re-shuffle speculation isn’t good for a Government and moves to be done as fast as possible

Great for @ShippersUnbound to have such an informed reshuffle piece, but aides briefing on reshuffles causes mayhem – angry ministers start demanding private reassurances and counter-briefing begins. Soon someone asks: are sure we *really* want to do this? pic.twitter.com/E9f99pWHJ5

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,334
    Primus inter pares.

    Love the cartoon.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,254
    Second of the month.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,108
    If this is true, I wonder if La Greening will be as awkward as the last time a PM attempted to reshuffle her.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    edited January 2018
    4th day after Tomorrow
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,317
    Yes, either do it or don't. Dawdling is just poor form.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,334
    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,259
    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    ROFLMFAO

    (PS shouldn't the headline be 'needs to be done' rather than 'moves to be done'?)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,334
    tlg86 said:

    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?

    He's not that vain
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,259
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?

    He's not that vain
    I prefer the Faldo approach...

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/70/49/797049297c69940af4c60eed05257947.jpg
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,981
    I don't think she'll reshuffle at all. She had a better December than some other months but I can't see the political imperative for reshuffling when she still lacks authority and needs every vote she can get on nearly every parliamentary division. Dumping Boris might be a good idea in terms of running the government but the arguments for doing so are exactly the same - bar the benefit of experience - as those for not appointing him in the first place. Does she really want a populist version of JRM, and one with a grudge to nurture at that, rampaging across the back benches?

    Reshuffles disappoint:

    1. Every minister who thinks they should have been promoted.
    2. Every MP who thinks they should have been appointed.
    3. Every minister who was sacked.
    4. MPs who think that another faction has gained disproportionately.

    They are worth doing once a parliament. This is not the time, particularly as her Chief Whip is still relatively new in the post.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    Theresa's leadership will only be under threat if she's perceived as going wobbly on Brexit. To counter this she should sack Hammond and replace him with either Boris or Rees-Mogg. That would make her the doyen of the Leave movement and politically invincible.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,374
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    Rest assured that this bollocks is just not on the radar of the vast majority of Labourites.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Theresa's leadership will only be under threat if she's perceived as going wobbly on Brexit. To counter this she should sack Hammond and replace him with either Boris or Rees-Mogg. That would make her the doyen of the Leave movement and politically invincible.

    Top trolling SD!

    My more pertinent concern would be that such an extensive shakeup could easily be destabilising in and of itself. I can't imagine that she would sack both Hammond and Boris, and if she's not going to do the latter it's not worth doing anything at all - if she does, then she daren't sack anyone else who wants to stay.

    Would be very annoyed indeed if Greening were replaced by some careerist tosser who runs around causing chaos to get good Daily Mail headlines. This has been by far the best year in policy terms since I went into teaching.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,334
    tlg86 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    tlg86 said:

    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?

    He's not that vain
    I prefer the Faldo approach...

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/70/49/797049297c69940af4c60eed05257947.jpg
    There's quite a few people that didn't like that he got a Knighthood

    A hard-hat and hi-vis clad Theresa May accepted the Politician of the Year award at last night’s Spectator awards, before delivering as cutting a put down of Craig Oliver as Guido has ever heard. Made all the better by Craig being there to hear it.

    “I’m particularly pleased to see Craig Oliver is here tonight. Sorry, Sir Craig…

    I understand that in his book on the referendum campaign, Craig says that when he heard the result of the referendum he walked out of the office, he walked into Whitehall and started retching violently. I have to say I think we all know that feeling. Most of us experienced it too when we saw his name on the resignation honours list.”

    https://order-order.com/2016/11/03/theresa-may-craig-olivers-gong-made-me-retch/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    SandyRentool said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    Rest assured that this bollocks is just not on the radar of the vast majority of Labourites.
    But you've got to admit Sandy, it is very funny.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    ROFLMFAO

    (PS shouldn't the headline be 'needs to be done' rather than 'moves to be done'?)
    The headline is please buy my book isn't it?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,761
    ydoethur said:

    SandyRentool said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    Rest assured that this bollocks is just not on the radar of the vast majority of Labourites.
    But you've got to admit Sandy, it is very funny.
    As funny as 150 majority?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    bigjohnowls said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    ROFLMFAO

    (PS shouldn't the headline be 'needs to be done' rather than 'moves to be done'?)
    The headline is please buy my book isn't it?
    Didn't know OGH had written a book on cabinet reshuffles.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,069
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Let's hope some young blood's brought in.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,981
    tlg86 said:

    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?

    "Craig Oliver, Kt" would be a more subtle way of doing it - if possibly open to misinterpretation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    bigjohnowls said:

    ydoethur said:

    SandyRentool said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This really is The Judean People's Front versus The People's Front of Judea.

    https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/948191084978561024

    Rest assured that this bollocks is just not on the radar of the vast majority of Labourites.
    But you've got to admit Sandy, it is very funny.
    As funny as 150 majority?
    I remember we had a government with one of those back in the old days.

    It was rubbish.

    I'm still trying to work out whether it was better or worse than what we have now.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,941
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Theresa's leadership will only be under threat if she's perceived as going wobbly on Brexit. To counter this she should sack Hammond and replace him with either Boris or Rees-Mogg. That would make her the doyen of the Leave movement and politically invincible.

    "the doyen of the Leave movement and politically invincible" - from that side of the argument maybe.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,929
    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,551
    Best time for a reshuffle is when a prime minister is strong.

    TM is the strongest she has been for a while, but will she get stronger?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She would almost certainly make a better President than Trump.

    Just as most people are less racist than Hitler.

    But isn't anyone else just a tiny bit concerned that all the Democratic front-runners are in their 70s? I know Trump is too but I'm sort of hoping he will be gone after 2024 and I can see younger Republicans on the horizon.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She's well positioned for the contest - left-wing enough to pick up much of the Bernie Sanders base but not obviously bonkers. I have some American friends who are heavily into Democratic Party fund-raising and were very enthusiastic Hillary supporters - I think they'd fairly happily transfer over to supporting Warren, but I'll ask next time I see them.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She would almost certainly make a better President than Trump.

    Just as most people are less racist than Hitler.

    But isn't anyone else just a tiny bit concerned that all the Democratic front-runners are in their 70s? I know Trump is too but I'm sort of hoping he will be gone after 2024 and I can see younger Republicans on the horizon.
    She's not in her seventies quite yet - she's 68.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She would almost certainly make a better President than Trump.

    Just as most people are less racist than Hitler.

    But isn't anyone else just a tiny bit concerned that all the Democratic front-runners are in their 70s? I know Trump is too but I'm sort of hoping he will be gone after 2024 and I can see younger Republicans on the horizon.
    She's not in her seventies quite yet - she's 68.
    But she will be by 2020.

    (Incidentally with Trump I meant gone by 2020, not 2024.)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2018
    IQ decline underway in Scandinavia, UK and Germany according to research:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/939189201190490112
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 712
    I was staggered Raab wasn't brought into cabinet last year
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,353
    FPT
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pong said:

    "Research shows that regular travelers will spend as much as 13% of their salary travelling to work by train in Britain from today. This compares with between 2.5% and 5% of workers’ salaries in countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain."

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/fare-rises-mean-commuters-lose-13-of-salary-getting-to-work-dv3j82xrk

    What allowance does that make for the fact that British workers tend to live further away from their place of work?
    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/948086009186709504

    Now that is a good deal Sunil! If only we could be more like our continental cousins.
    Britain First :open_mouth:

    I still have to much of Scotland, Wales, the Teesside area, and the West Country left to do :)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,818
    PeterMannion said:

    I was staggered Raab wasn't brought into cabinet last year

    Is it safe to bring a supporter of a second referendum into the cabinet?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633368/Brexit-Tory-warns-SECOND-referendum-bound-crucial-Tory-leadership-contest-replace-Cameron-Leave-lose.html
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,746
    edited January 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She would almost certainly make a better President than Trump.

    Just as most people are less racist than Hitler.

    But isn't anyone else just a tiny bit concerned that all the Democratic front-runners are in their 70s? I know Trump is too but I'm sort of hoping he will be gone after 2024 and I can see younger Republicans on the horizon.
    There are two Democrat front runners in their early 50s, and both are women.

    Kirsten Gillibrand (51). NY Senator. Lawyer. Very ambitious, politically ambidextrous.

    Kamala Harris (53). California Senator. Lawyer (formerly AG of California). Good speaker, charismatic. African-American.

    On Betfair, both these women are in the top five favourites for Democrat nominee, alongside the oldies (Biden, Sanders and Warren). Plenty of choice there. Contrast the Republican hopefuls.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,069
    Mr. Barnesian, very wise suggestions. (I may have backed them at 51 and 67).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    I think Hammond is safe in the reshuffle after the Budget
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,287
    One of Cameron's strengths was that he didn't keep messing about with cabinet posts, and hence his ministers gained more experience and were less paranoid about the next shuffle than were those under Blair.

    Nevertheless May will be looking towards the succession, and not liking the betting field right now. She will want to bring on some younger members and hope they can grow into their jobs in time for a 2020 leadership contest. That means getting rid of some of her old lags.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    If Sanders runs he will already have most of the populist left Democratic primary vote tied up but if he does not run then Warren has a good chance of picking up most of his support. Though even if Sanders does run she could be his running mate
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    HYUFD said:

    I think Hammond is safe in the reshuffle after the Budget

    Pity. He doesn't bring much to the party.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Barnesian said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    Her only real downside is that she's less likely to get Wall St cash than other candidates - but that's also an upside.
    No doubt the usual suspects will call her a socialist, but I think she'd probably make an excellent president.
    She would almost certainly make a better President than Trump.

    Just as most people are less racist than Hitler.

    But isn't anyone else just a tiny bit concerned that all the Democratic front-runners are in their 70s? I know Trump is too but I'm sort of hoping he will be gone after 2024 and I can see younger Republicans on the horizon.
    There are two Democrat front runners in their early 50s, and both are women.

    Kirsten Gillibrand (51). NY Senator. Lawyer. Very ambitious, politically ambidextrous.

    Kamala Harris (53). California Senator. Lawyer (formerly AG of California). Good speaker, charismatic. African-American.

    On Betfair, both these women are in the top five favourites for Democrat nominee, alongside the oldies (Biden, Sanders and Warren). Plenty of choice there. Contrast the Republican hopefuls.
    People are living longer. Baroness Trumpington is 95!

    She edited an episode of the Today programme during the recent hols. She was interviewed & sounded as clear as a 70 year-old (when talking about the need to legalise, tax and regulate prostitution as it happens).

    High-status individuals live longer than low-status ones. Macmillan, Churchill, Heath, Home, Callaghan, Thatcher all lived into their late 80s or 90s. I don't think we need to worry about someone just because they're in their 60s or even early to mid 70s.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HYUFD said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    If Sanders runs he will already have most of the populist left Democratic primary vote tied up but if he does not run then Warren has a good chance of picking up most of his support. Though even if Sanders does run she could be his running mate
    Sanders will be 78 at the time of the election. Even in the modern gerontocracy, that's going it a bit for the start of a term.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's probably cheaper to travel by taxi on a lot of rail routes if you can get 3 or 4 people willing to travel together.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,818
    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    AndyJS said:

    IQ decline underway in Scandinavia, UK and Germany according to research:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/939189201190490112
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

    Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    edited January 2018
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    volcanopete said:

    Patrick McLoughlin looks nailed on for the push.He has been largely invisible and lax on security at Tory conference.Those Tory MPs with military service are likely to come in to act as close protection for Mrs May.
    OT. Evidence Elizabeth Warren looks to be planning for a POTUS tilt in 2020.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

    If Sanders runs he will already have most of the populist left Democratic primary vote tied up but if he does not run then Warren has a good chance of picking up most of his support. Though even if Sanders does run she could be his running mate
    Sanders will be 78 at the time of the election. Even in the modern gerontocracy, that's going it a bit for the start of a term.
    Sanders is also more likely to win the rustbelt than Warren is, he polls better against Trump than she does and his bluecollar populist style contrasts with her Harvard liberal academic style.

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,847
    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Boris looks distinctly unwell in that photo so that's cheered me up a bit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,746
    Dura_Ace said:

    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Boris looks distinctly unwell in that photo so that's cheered me up a bit.
    He looks as if he's having sleepless nights.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited January 2018
    Dura_Ace said:

    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Boris looks distinctly unwell in that photo so that's cheered me up a bit.
    snap

    edit: I wish him ignominy, not ill health.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    edited January 2018
    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    That article suggests Boris is the main Cabinet champion of a 'clean break' with the EU. With Jacob Rees Mogg having overtaken him as the new favourite to succeed May, Boris wants to win back ground with the staunchly pro Brexit Tory membership. Once the transition period ends in 2021 they will want to ensure any regulatory alignment does not become permanent and free movement is brought to an end by the 2022 general election
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,518
    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Poor old Boris.

    His complaint seems to be, having set himself up as the most high-profile Leaver in the referendum, then writing articles in favour of a clean break....

    He is then expected to defend his opinions and positions in front of the rest of the Cabinet!

    Life is sooo unfair.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
    If the Democrats want to win the Electoral College then Sanders or Biden are needed, Warren would be easier prey for Trump. It is that simple
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,344
    Toms said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Boris looks distinctly unwell in that photo so that's cheered me up a bit.
    snap

    edit: I wish him ignominy, not ill health.
    Well, something painful & disgusting but non life threatening; perhaps a wee bit of gonorrhea and 2 ingrowing toenails.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,154
    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
    If the Democrats want to win the Electoral College then Sanders or Biden are needed, Warren would be easier prey for Trump. It is that simple
    I would be inclined to agree with Richard. I don't think the Democrats can win with candidates in their late 70s.

    If only Biden or Sanders can win for them in 2020, then effectively you are saying they have no hope of winning.

    Thank you @Barnesian for your tips. Two years ago I would have thought their lack of political experience would be an issue. Now, Trump has rewritten that rule. But I wonder if lawyers might not have a bit of an image problem?

    At any rate I will keep my eye on them.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,344
    edited January 2018
    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,557
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
    @HYFUD seems unable to conceive that new candidates will emerge. He sees every election as a rerun of the last one, and on the same issues.

    I think it far more likely that new candidates will emerge, but as the first primaries are 2 years away, I am holding onto my stake money.

    Hillary, Biden and Sanders are more likely to feature in endorsements than the ballots, IMO.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Foxy said:

    @HYFUD seems unable to conceive that new candidates will emerge. He sees every election as a rerun of the last one, and on the same issues.

    I think it far more likely that new candidates will emerge, but as the first primaries are 2 years away, I am holding onto my stake money.

    Hillary, Biden and Sanders are more likely to feature in endorsements than the ballots, IMO.

    Yes, there no doubt will be new candidates. I'm not suggesting that Elizabeth Warren is the only one, merely that she is well-positioned politically and does appear to be making the preparations needed to have a serious run at the nomination. @Barnesian is right to point to Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as other possibles, but it's early days as you rightly say. All sorts of names from the credible to the absurd have been touted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2020
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
    @HYFUD seems unable to conceive that new candidates will emerge. He sees every election as a rerun of the last one, and on the same issues.

    I think it far more likely that new candidates will emerge, but as the first primaries are 2 years away, I am holding onto my stake money.

    Hillary, Biden and Sanders are more likely to feature in endorsements than the ballots, IMO.
    Against incumbent Presidents former candidates and VPs often tend to win the nomination, McGovern, Reagan, Mondale, Dole, Romney etc and the key for the Democrats is to win the rustbelt and thus the Electoral College. They need a candidate who can appeal to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania above all not California, DC, New York and Massachusetts
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,396
    david_herdson said:

    I don't think she'll reshuffle at all. She had a better December than some other months but I can't see the political imperative for reshuffling when she still lacks authority and needs every vote she can get on nearly every parliamentary division. Dumping Boris might be a good idea in terms of running the government but the arguments for doing so are exactly the same - bar the benefit of experience - as those for not appointing him in the first place. Does she really want a populist version of JRM, and one with a grudge to nurture at that, rampaging across the back benches?

    Reshuffles disappoint:

    1. Every minister who thinks they should have been promoted.
    2. Every MP who thinks they should have been appointed.
    3. Every minister who was sacked.
    4. MPs who think that another faction has gained disproportionately.

    They are worth doing once a parliament. This is not the time, particularly as her Chief Whip is still relatively new in the post.

    I have the impression of Mrs May suddenly feeling strong and stable. Did she take a holiday over the Christmas break?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,847
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Isn't the question really just a cipher for "would you like cheaper rail fares"?

    Which they will undoubtedly get when BR comes back as the government of the day will unleash a mighty cataract of subsidies.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,876
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    The Communist Party in Russia is the party of choice for older electors.

    And, in my mid teens, I could have ten private minutes with my girl-frtiend on the way home from school if we got a comparment to ourselves.
    Which wasn’t always easy!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,602
    edited January 2018
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Sanders thinks he is more likely to win than she is he will run.

    Provided he doesn't think he's too old. He'd then have to persuade supporters, primary voters, fund-raisers and ultimately voters generally that he's not too old. He'd be pushing it, to put it mildly, as would Joe Biden. Not totally unthinkable, but a big negative.
    Trump is also well over 70 so age is less of an issue than if the President was much younger.

    Biden and Sanders are also the best bets the Democrats have of winning the rustbelt and the Electoral College
    What you are missing is that there a massive difference between a first term where the candidate would be aged 70 through 74 and someone aged 78 through 82.
    If the Democrats want to win the Electoral College then Sanders or Biden are needed, Warren would be easier prey for Trump. It is that simple
    I would be inclined to agree with Richard. I don't think the Democrats can win with candidates in their late 70s.

    If only Biden or Sanders can win for them in 2020, then effectively you are saying they have no hope of winning.

    Thank you @Barnesian for your tips. Two years ago I would have thought their lack of political experience would be an issue. Now, Trump has rewritten that rule. But I wonder if lawyers might not have a bit of an image problem?

    At any rate I will keep my eye on them.
    The latest PPP poll has Biden 14% ahead of Trump, Sanders 13%, Warren 9% and Gilibrand 7% and Harris 6%. The latter three can win of course but have less chance than the former 2

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/voters-think-trump-resign-harassment-allegations/
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,374
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Foxy said:

    @HYFUD seems unable to conceive that new candidates will emerge. He sees every election as a rerun of the last one, and on the same issues.

    I think it far more likely that new candidates will emerge, but as the first primaries are 2 years away, I am holding onto my stake money.

    Hillary, Biden and Sanders are more likely to feature in endorsements than the ballots, IMO.

    Yes, there no doubt will be new candidates. I'm not suggesting that Elizabeth Warren is the only one, merely that she is well-positioned politically and does appear to be making the preparations needed to have a serious run at the nomination. @Barnesian is right to point to Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as other possibles, but it's early days as you rightly say. All sorts of names from the credible to the absurd have been touted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2020
    Julian Castro looks suspiciously like a real-life Matt Santos.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,762
    williamglenn said:

    Has this been mentioned on here? Briefing, presumably from Boris Johnson, that other cabinet eurosceptics are hanging him out to dry, naming Gove, Davis and Mordaunt.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/91734/excl-boris-johnson-frustrated

    Sounds to me as if Boris has lost the argument within the cabinet. He's now painting himself as the one true believer for when the firestorm that he hopes will follow a softer Brexit engulfs May.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    IQ decline underway in Scandinavia, UK and Germany according to research:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/939189201190490112
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

    Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    Perhaps we need more immigration from Singapore and less from say Pakistan to keep our IQ score up..

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,396
    FF43 said:

    david_herdson said:

    I don't think she'll reshuffle at all. She had a better December than some other months but I can't see the political imperative for reshuffling when she still lacks authority and needs every vote she can get on nearly every parliamentary division. Dumping Boris might be a good idea in terms of running the government but the arguments for doing so are exactly the same - bar the benefit of experience - as those for not appointing him in the first place. Does she really want a populist version of JRM, and one with a grudge to nurture at that, rampaging across the back benches?

    Reshuffles disappoint:

    1. Every minister who thinks they should have been promoted.
    2. Every MP who thinks they should have been appointed.
    3. Every minister who was sacked.
    4. MPs who think that another faction has gained disproportionately.

    They are worth doing once a parliament. This is not the time, particularly as her Chief Whip is still relatively new in the post.

    I have the impression of Mrs May suddenly feeling strong and stable. Did she take a holiday over the Christmas break?
    Mrs May perhaps wants to jolt Boris Johnson into behaving. Johnson is neither doing his formal job as Foreign Secretary, nor his real task of selling the Brexit outcome to Leavers. So Mrs May threatens to make him responsible for Brexit delivery. Potentially a cunning move because (a) he can't dismiss that as beneath him and retain the respect of Brexiteers and (b) it's ludicrous to expect Johnson to deliver anything, and certainly not a tricky but ideologically sound Brexit settlement. So it's, ok, keep your FO sinecure, but you will fall into line.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,069
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), repeated cousin-marrying leading to genetic similarity of a more sibling degree isn't going to help matters...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited January 2018
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,746
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    david_herdson said:

    I don't think she'll reshuffle at all. She had a better December than some other months but I can't see the political imperative for reshuffling when she still lacks authority and needs every vote she can get on nearly every parliamentary division. Dumping Boris might be a good idea in terms of running the government but the arguments for doing so are exactly the same - bar the benefit of experience - as those for not appointing him in the first place. Does she really want a populist version of JRM, and one with a grudge to nurture at that, rampaging across the back benches?

    Reshuffles disappoint:

    1. Every minister who thinks they should have been promoted.
    2. Every MP who thinks they should have been appointed.
    3. Every minister who was sacked.
    4. MPs who think that another faction has gained disproportionately.

    They are worth doing once a parliament. This is not the time, particularly as her Chief Whip is still relatively new in the post.

    I have the impression of Mrs May suddenly feeling strong and stable. Did she take a holiday over the Christmas break?
    Mrs May perhaps wants to jolt Boris Johnson into behaving. Johnson is neither doing his formal job as Foreign Secretary, nor his real task of selling the Brexit outcome to Leavers. So Mrs May threatens to make him responsible for Brexit delivery. Potentially a cunning move because (a) he can't dismiss that as beneath him and retain the respect of Brexiteers and (b) it's ludicrous to expect Johnson to deliver anything, and certainly not a tricky but ideologically sound Brexit settlement. So it's, ok, keep your FO sinecure, but you will fall into line.
    I think that's right. Boris is virtue signalling to the Tory membership, just like he did in the Leave campaign. "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off". I don't think he is a hard Brexit man at heart at all. He's just made a political calculation but we can all see through him now.

    May should call him into her study in Number 10.

    "Boris. I've been considering your position in the Cabinet. I'm disturbed by your behaviour. It is self serving, not collegiate and quite damaging. I'm prepared to leave you in position as Foreign Secretary but only on condition that you clear all speeches and articles on Brexit with me personally. Failure to do so I will take as a resignation matter. Is that understood?"

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Blimey. I find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who used to use BR and still uses trains today could possibly want to go back to the old nightmare of BR.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.

    It's more challenging to remove the shareholders from telecoms, gas, electricity and water for £0.00. But it happened with Welsh Water. Royal Mail's share price has been falling in last year. There too, something might be possible for much closer to £0.00 than £10,000,000,000.00.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,714
    tlg86 said:

    Why hasn't Craig Oliver changed his Twitter profile to Sir Craig Oliver?

    He is not a balloon perhaps
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2018
    Iran: very rough estimates suggest 90% of those on the street are under 25 years of age. This is high even though you expect the young to dominate. Many of the older supporters were sympathetic to the 1979 revolution. It still isn't clear where the co-ordination is really coming from but you'd look perhaps to some of the Iranian nationalist & centre-left opposition for possible local smarts.

    Outside influencers? Unclear.




  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Blimey. I find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who used to use BR and still uses trains today could possibly want to go back to the old nightmare of BR.
    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited January 2018
    Ishmael_Z said:

    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?

    That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,703
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Blimey. I find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who used to use BR and still uses trains today could possibly want to go back to the old nightmare of BR.
    next you'll be saying the Trabant wasnt a performance car
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,910
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Blimey. I find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who used to use BR and still uses trains today could possibly want to go back to the old nightmare of BR.
    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?
    I think it depends on *which* BR. BR in the 1980s was a very different beast to that of the 1970s and earlier: it did well to manage a shrinking network efficiently, whereas before it managed a shrinking network poorly. Customer service was patchy (as, to be fair, it can still be), but they actually started to put the customer first.

    All thanks to Thatcher's governments allowing the railways to get on with the job. I'm always bemused when lefties criticise Thatcher over her handling of the railways, when she actually saved them - especially by disregarding the Serpell report ...
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Alanbrooke said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Blimey. I find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who used to use BR and still uses trains today could possibly want to go back to the old nightmare of BR.
    next you'll be saying the Trabant wasnt a performance car
    That used to depend on how hard you pushed.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,344
    Dura_Ace said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Isn't the question really just a cipher for "would you like cheaper rail fares"?

    Which they will undoubtedly get when BR comes back as the government of the day will unleash a mighty cataract of subsidies.
    Probably, though I think the Tories tend to over egg the beige Austin Allegro, unburied dead horror of Before Margaret. If the oldies are nostalgic for a time when some of the map and most of the population were still a dirty pink, for a lot of them it will be the whole package, curly edged BR sandwiches and all.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,876
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?

    That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
    The oil price shock had a lot to do with it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?

    That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
    The oil price shock had a lot to do with it.
    No, it was the toxic combination of out-of-control unions and management which was focused only on getting subsidies out the government, and couldn't therefore care less about customers. In a sense you can't blame the managers: it was just so much easier to say 'give us another billion or we'll have to sack thousands of workers and that will cause sympathy strikes all round the economy' than to actually do the hard work of improving things.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,557
    Y0kel said:

    Iran: very rough estimates suggest 90% of those on the street are under 25 years of age. This is high even though you expect the young to dominate. Many of the older supporters were sympathetic to the 1979 revolution. It still isn't clear where the co-ordination is really coming from but you'd look perhaps to some of the Iranian nationalist & centre-left opposition for possible local smarts.

    Outside influencers? Unclear.

    It looks endogenous to me. Lots of unemployed youngsters, well educated and sick of austerity from a leadership obsessed with foreign adventures.

    It all looks rather unpredictable.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Network Rail, which runs the tracks, is already nationalised.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,910
    David_Evershed said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    Network Rail, which runs the tracks, is already nationalised.
    And failing.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    TGOHF said:

    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    IQ decline underway in Scandinavia, UK and Germany according to research:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/939189201190490112
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

    Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    Perhaps we need more immigration from Singapore and less from say Pakistan to keep our IQ score up..

    And which groups would you like to see emmigrate to improve the UK IQ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    OldKingCole said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    The Communist Party in Russia is the party of choice for older electors.

    And, in my mid teens, I could have ten private minutes with my girl-frtiend on the way home from school if we got a comparment to ourselves.
    Which wasn’t always easy!
    Non corridor?
  • TwistedFireStopperTwistedFireStopper Posts: 2,538
    rural_voter said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.

    It's more challenging to remove the shareholders from telecoms, gas, electricity and water for £0.00. But it happened with Welsh Water. Royal Mail's share price has been falling in last year. There too, something might be possible for much closer to £0.00 than £10,000,000,000.00.
    I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    AndyJS said:

    It's probably cheaper to travel by taxi on a lot of rail routes if you can get 3 or 4 people willing to travel together.

    .............. and travel the same route.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    TGOHF said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Hammond is safe in the reshuffle after the Budget

    Pity. He doesn't bring much to the party.
    Competence?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,374
    David_Evershed said:

    TGOHF said:

    brendan16 said:

    AndyJS said:

    IQ decline underway in Scandinavia, UK and Germany according to research:

    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/939189201190490112
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617302787

    Do they provide an explanation for this? East Asian and European nations tend to have the highest IQ. Mongolians apparently have the same average IQ as the Swiss.

    https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country
    Perhaps we need more immigration from Singapore and less from say Pakistan to keep our IQ score up..

    And which groups would you like to see emmigrate to improve the UK IQ?
    That is already taken care of with the Daily Mail readers who migrate to the Spanish Costas.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,876
    David_Evershed said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    The Communist Party in Russia is the party of choice for older electors.

    And, in my mid teens, I could have ten private minutes with my girl-frtiend on the way home from school if we got a comparment to ourselves.
    Which wasn’t always easy!
    Non corridor?
    Of course. Commuter trains.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,910
    TwistedFireStopper said:

    rural_voter said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.

    It's more challenging to remove the shareholders from telecoms, gas, electricity and water for £0.00. But it happened with Welsh Water. Royal Mail's share price has been falling in last year. There too, something might be possible for much closer to £0.00 than £10,000,000,000.00.
    I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
    " ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."

    That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.

    At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,876
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?

    That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
    The oil price shock had a lot to do with it.
    No, it was the toxic combination of out-of-control unions and management which was focused only on getting subsidies out the government, and couldn't therefore care less about customers. In a sense you can't blame the managers: it was just so much easier to say 'give us another billion or we'll have to sack thousands of workers and that will cause sympathy strikes all round the economy' than to actually do the hard work of improving things.
    While I would hesitate to argue with you on economics, that’s not how I remember it, and during the late 60’s and 70’s I was a director of a group of six pharmacies. The 1983 oil price hike, with the concurrent stock market crash shook the system to its foundations, and people worked hard to defend their positions. Understandably.
    As I recall it, too, we were developing the customer culture during the 70’s; the take it or leave it conditions of the previous two decades were well and truly over.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,374
    JosiasJessop said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    rural_voter said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.

    It's more challenging to remove the shareholders from telecoms, gas, electricity and water for £0.00. But it happened with Welsh Water. Royal Mail's share price has been falling in last year. There too, something might be possible for much closer to £0.00 than £10,000,000,000.00.
    I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
    " ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."

    That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.

    At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
    The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,910
    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    But how much of the shitness was BR specific, and how much due to its being in the 1970s when everything was shit (or at least all large public enterprises and all forms of transport)?

    That's a fair point, the UK pre-Thatcher and the vastly better UK post-Thatcher account for a large part of the difference. Even so, I was a BR commuter in the 1990s and it was still absolutely dire. No 'Delay repay' in those days of course - you just had to lump it.
    The oil price shock had a lot to do with it.
    No, it was the toxic combination of out-of-control unions and management which was focused only on getting subsidies out the government, and couldn't therefore care less about customers. In a sense you can't blame the managers: it was just so much easier to say 'give us another billion or we'll have to sack thousands of workers and that will cause sympathy strikes all round the economy' than to actually do the hard work of improving things.
    While I would hesitate to argue with you on economics, that’s not how I remember it, and during the late 60’s and 70’s I was a director of a group of six pharmacies. The 1983 oil price hike, with the concurrent stock market crash shook the system to its foundations, and people worked hard to defend their positions. Understandably.
    As I recall it, too, we were developing the customer culture during the 70’s; the take it or leave it conditions of the previous two decades were well and truly over.
    "The 1983 oil price hike"

    1973, surely?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,344
    Going native.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/948229118071574530
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,910
    SandyRentool said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    TwistedFireStopper said:

    rural_voter said:

    Danny565 said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Poor old souls, obviously completely forgotten the reality of BR.

    https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/948241178981433344

    Honestly, before I started posting on PB, it had never even occurred to me that people would think the current railways set-up is better than the British Rail days. I used to think the only dispute was whether it was affordable to renationalise them, not whether it would be desirable in itself, since that seemed blindingly obvious.
    By returning franchises to the public sector only when they expire, the cost is reduced to ~£0.00. An important part of putting it back together again is vertically integrating it again into a body like the Swiss Federal Railways, i.e. one body has control of trains and tracks and indeed owns the trains, thus avoiding rip-off lease payments.

    It's more challenging to remove the shareholders from telecoms, gas, electricity and water for £0.00. But it happened with Welsh Water. Royal Mail's share price has been falling in last year. There too, something might be possible for much closer to £0.00 than £10,000,000,000.00.
    I can see the attraction in theory of re-nationalisation. The utilities all come out of the same pipe/cables so why do we have to haggle with different private companies to get a better deal? As a nation, we're all confused by different tariffs and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure. Corbyn's Labour are trying to surf that wave of populism. I get that in reality it isn't that easy to take them back from the private companies that now run them, but it does have a simplistic beauty to it. Whether the state could actually runi them any better is obviously open to question!
    " ... and perhaps think that if the state took over, it'd be cheaper and profit could be ploughed back into the infrastructure."

    That's where the thinking goes awry. Nationalised utilities may not prove cheaper, innovation might be stifled, and governments would covetously eye any profits and demolish ringfences to grab them, destroying investment.

    At least, that's prior experience here in the UK. Even the nationalised BT, which I can say many good things about in the technical field, gave a rather poor customer experience.
    The nationalised British Gas did a huge amount of technical innovation. This included strategic research programmes looking to address issues that were thought to be several decades away. Post privatisation, it all started to wither away.
    Details, please.
This discussion has been closed.