politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next Prime Minister: Gus O’Donnell at 250/1?

2nd

JohnLoony said:

Who the cock-a-doodle-doo is Gus (Lord) O'Donnell? Which party? "Former Cabinet Secretary"? When? How long ago? I might once have known who he was several thousand years ago, but I have long since forgotten, and - if you can't be bothered to tell us - I can't be bothered to Google him to find out. Suffice it to say that the article is obviously a load of doubleplusridiculous ultra-nincompoopism, presumably designed as click-bait to get the proles to look at a few subliminal adverts at the side of the screen rather than to enlighten the political consciousness of the masses.

He was the head of the civil service. It would be a remarkable turn of events, but it doesn't hurt to think about the implications of the FTPA.

tlg86 said:

JohnLoony said:

Who the cock-a-doodle-doo is Gus (Lord) O'Donnell? Which party? "Former Cabinet Secretary"? When? How long ago? I might once have known who he was several thousand years ago, but I have long since forgotten, and - if you can't be bothered to tell us - I can't be bothered to Google him to find out. Suffice it to say that the article is obviously a load of doubleplusridiculous ultra-nincompoopism, presumably designed as click-bait to get the proles to look at a few subliminal adverts at the side of the screen rather than to enlighten the political consciousness of the masses.

He was the head of the civil service. It would be a remarkable turn of events, but it doesn't hurt to think about the implications of the FTPA.

'Remarkable' is something of an understatement. The only Civil Servant ever to get close to No. 10 in his own right was John Anderson, who acted as head of the government during the transition to Labour in 1945 because by coincidence Churchill and Eden were out of the country. However, he was popular, respected, intelligent, had a long track record of successful public service and was a man of great ability and integrity. I am struggling to apply any of those labels to the ignorant New Labour stooge Gus O'Donnell.

The Wellington parallel is also inexact. Wellington was asked by the King to form a government himself as the acknowledged overall Leader of the Opposition, but refused - he did however recommend Peel and said he would look after things until Peel arrived back from a holiday in Italy.

If it gets really tense the other possibility that David overlooks is the most senior non-party figure in the Commons could head an interim government (which was also considered in 1832 and 1834) - but let us hope John Bercow is never called on in that capacity.

QTWTAIN.

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

JohnLoony said:

Who the cock-a-doodle-doo is Gus (Lord) O'Donnell? Which party? "Former Cabinet Secretary"? When? How long ago? I might once have known who he was several thousand years ago, but I have long since forgotten, and - if you can't be bothered to tell us - I can't be bothered to Google him to find out. Suffice it to say that the article is obviously a load of doubleplusridiculous ultra-nincompoopism, presumably designed as click-bait to get the proles to look at a few subliminal adverts at the side of the screen rather than to enlighten the political consciousness of the masses.

He was the head of the civil service. It would be a remarkable turn of events, but it doesn't hurt to think about the implications of the FTPA.

'Remarkable' is something of an understatement. The only Civil Servant ever to get close to No. 10 in his own right was John Anderson, who acted as head of the government during the transition to Labour in 1945 because by coincidence Churchill and Eden were out of the country. However, he was popular, respected, intelligent, had a long track record of successful public service and was a man of great ability and integrity. I am struggling to apply any of those labels to the ignorant New Labour stooge Gus O'Donnell.

The Wellington parallel is also inexact. Wellington was asked by the King to form a government himself as the acknowledged overall Leader of the Opposition, but refused - he did however recommend Peel and said he would look after things until Peel arrived back from a holiday in Italy.

If it gets really tense the other possibility that David overlooks is the most senior non-party figure in the Commons could head an interim government (which was also considered in 1832 and 1834) - but let us hope John Bercow is never called on in that capacity.

Shudder.

We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.

Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

But Carney isn't a Member of Parliament. True, he could be given a peerage to become one but it would look rather bad.

Not happening. Not even once in 250 scenarios.

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

TBH, this does a rather 'bottom of the barrel scrape’ thread. Can’t we have an AV one instead?

No, this would not happen - like farting in a lift, wrong on so many levels.

If TM's government lost a vote of confidence there would be soundings. Could anyone even attempt to form a government ? The leader of the SNP in the Commons would have the best chance at about 1%. Neither Corbyn nor Farron could manage that. Each of these would be asked INFORMALLY if they had any prospect of forming a government - self-evidently they wouldn't.

TM would then suggest they work collectively though the minefield of the FTPA to seek a dissolution. After huffing and puffing this would be agreed.

We will see a lot next week - just how stupid are the LD peers ?

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

Burn the heretic - with their wiffle sticks as kindling -

Mr. W, I didn't comment on whether the aristophobia was justified or not.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

Well hardly ever anyway *cough* - or to be precise just the once in PB.com's proud 12 year history.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

I hope you are backing England this evening then

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

I thought he and more especially his wife couldn't wait to hot foot it back to Canada, doubtless complete with gong, in just 16 months' time.

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

What about an hereditary peer sitting in the Commons?

An idea with considerable merit ....

JackW said:

RobD said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

What about an hereditary peer sitting in the Commons?

An idea with considerable merit ....

Maybe Heseltine gets to be PM after all

PlatoSaid said:

OT This is quite amusing, 4chan really were determined to troll Shia LaBeouf protests.

(Snip)

Lol. Milo, Pewdiepie and now 4chan: you really are a fan of the Internet's murkier places and people, aren't you?

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

tlg86 said:

JohnLoony said:

Who the cock-a-doodle-doo is Gus (Lord) O'Donnell? Which party? "Former Cabinet Secretary"? When? How long ago? I might once have known who he was several thousand years ago, but I have long since forgotten, and - if you can't be bothered to tell us - I can't be bothered to Google him to find out. Suffice it to say that the article is obviously a load of doubleplusridiculous ultra-nincompoopism, presumably designed as click-bait to get the proles to look at a few subliminal adverts at the side of the screen rather than to enlighten the political consciousness of the masses.

He was the head of the civil service. It would be a remarkable turn of events, but it doesn't hurt to think about the implications of the FTPA.

'Remarkable' is something of an understatement. The only Civil Servant ever to get close to No. 10 in his own right was John Anderson, who acted as head of the government during the transition to Labour in 1945 because by coincidence Churchill and Eden were out of the country. However, he was popular, respected, intelligent, had a long track record of successful public service and was a man of great ability and integrity. I am struggling to apply any of those labels to the ignorant New Labour stooge Gus O'Donnell.

The Wellington parallel is also inexact. Wellington was asked by the King to form a government himself as the acknowledged overall Leader of the Opposition, but refused - he did however recommend Peel and said he would look after things until Peel arrived back from a holiday in Italy.

If it gets really tense the other possibility that David overlooks is the most senior non-party figure in the Commons could head an interim government (which was also considered in 1832 and 1834) - but let us hope John Bercow is never called on in that capacity.

With respect, this thijking is what I mean by being too bound by precedent. When the rules change - and they have - new methods are sometimes needed. And every practice for which there is precedent was itself once done for the first time.

I agree that there are other possibilities, though I find Bercow even less likely. The advantage of a genuine technocrat is, apart from ability and experience, that they won't be in the way afterwards.

With respect, my point was that the precedents you yourself cited were not precedents or were wrongly described. As for ability, O'Donnell may be politely described as an arrogant fool with a long track record of failure. Your logic therefore seemed (unusually) to be flawed. The odds are if anything far too generous for him.

Bercow is a thousand times more likely than GoD, and he is most unlikely. And surely a further advantage of him would be he would be forced to quit as Speaker?

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

AlastairMeeks said:

250/1 bets are by definition highly unlikely. In that context this is a fair bet.

Theresa May would have the holding successor lined up before setting this mechanical exercise in motion. Wouldn't it be more likely to be a Conservative grandee? Lord Howard perhaps? Or someone who has advocated an early election already - Baron Hague of Richmond?

Possible, but we just can't know, so it's best to think of all the possibilities.

However, if May had lost a vote of No Confidence, even on purpose, she wouldn't be in a strong position to determine wht happened next. Corbyn would certainly be asked. Would May have already resigned / been dismissed at this point? We can't know in advance: it's uncharted territory. But if so, my guess would be that to appoint a new Conservative government after the two-week deadline was up would look odd and go dow badly in the media.

Of course, the whole thing would look odd but the public would be more likely to accept a solution that had both been trailed in advance and which appeared fair and neutral.

It shold also go without saying that you'll be able to get juicy odds on Howard or Hague, if that's your thinking.

DavidL said:

We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.

Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.

Two questions there.

1. *why* don't we do technocratic governments?, and
2. If not GOD, then who?

TheScreamingEagles said:

I had a similar idea, but instead of Gus O'Donnell, I was thinking of Mark Carney instead.

We've had a Canadian born U.K. PM before.

There's your next Chancellor in this scenario.

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What do you think is wrong with it?

MarkHopkins said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What do you think is wrong with it?

Have they finally started fining non-payers, rather than just sending 'you've been naughty' letters?

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.

Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.

Neville Chamberlain? If it hadn't been for Hitler his technocratic government would probably have been well regarded in retrospect. I know that sounds a bit silly.

Chamberlain was absolutely a party politician, to the extent that it was his downfall in the Norway debate whe he appealed for support from his Rt Hon and Hon Friends i.e. because they were in the same party. That call at that time was extremely ill-judged. And, of course, Chamberlain maintained a Tory / Nat Lib government into the war, unlike Churchill.

The better parallel, as ydoether mentions, is John Anderson. He might also have mentioned the precedent of James Grigg.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, what's happened at Dartford Crossing? Excessive tolls or have they been charging the wrong people?

Basically, they record your licence number as you pass. If you do not pay the fee (currently £2.50) before the end of the next day, you get a fine. There are alternative systems for locals and regular users, but if you only cross a couple of times a year then it's a pain in the backside.

It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.

Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.

Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.

It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.

(rant mode off)

There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...

Edit: oh, and inadequate signage to tell people what the f is going on. At least in the early days (haven't been over it in five months).

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Fishing said:

DavidL said:

We don't do technocratic governments. Not even Cromwell qualified as such. And if we did it wouldn't be such a compromised and disrespected figure as GOD. 250/1 is a long way short of generous for a scenario that probably requires a latter day Guy Fawkes to strike at PMQs at a minimum.

Yet another demonstration why the FTPA is not fit for purpose in a Parliamentary democracy though.

I agree. To call the FTPA a constitutional abortion is insulting to the killing of unborn babies.

In fairness, that's true of most constitutional tinkering in this country, including Blair's badly-thought-through reforms of the House of Lords and the Law Lords and the fudged devolution settlements to Labour-supporting areas.

I think you will find that they are ex Labour supporting areas, certainly to the north and increasingly to the west as well. May be a moral in that somewhere.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

It seems the Curse of Morris Dancer extends to rugby

On-topic: 250/1 shots never come in. I cannot see a Lord being acceptable as PM.

A lord wouldn't be acceptable as PM in normal circumstances but would be ideal as a caretaker precisely because of that lack of mandate, as well as being unaligned.

malcolmg said:

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

I think that is the problem. It is taking a fraction of the traffic it was designed for.

As as road user, that's great. As a model for future investment in infrastructure, it doesn't look good.

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, what's happened at Dartford Crossing? Excessive tolls or have they been charging the wrong people?

Basically, they record your licence number as you pass. If you do not pay the fee (currently £2.50) before the end of the next day, you get a fine. There are alternative systems for locals and regular users, but if you only cross a couple of times a year then it's a pain in the backside.

It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.

Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.

Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.

It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.

(rant mode off)

There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...

The abolition of the toll booths has been a fantastic development knocking huge amounts of time off trips involving the Dartford Crossing. For all the downsides of the new system it's far better than waiting for 3 hours as I have in the past. The minor inconvenience of paying online is nothing compared with that.

IanB2 said:

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

250/1 bets are by definition highly unlikely. In that context this is a fair bet.

Theresa May would have the holding successor lined up before setting this mechanical exercise in motion. Wouldn't it be more likely to be a Conservative grandee? Lord Howard perhaps? Or someone who has advocated an early election already - Baron Hague of Richmond?

Possible, but we just can't know, so it's best to think of all the possibilities.

However, if May had lost a vote of No Confidence, even on purpose, she wouldn't be in a strong position to determine wht happened next. Corbyn would certainly be asked. Would May have already resigned / been dismissed at this point? We can't know in advance: it's uncharted territory. But if so, my guess would be that to appoint a new Conservative government after the two-week deadline was up would look odd and go dow badly in the media.

Of course, the whole thing would look odd but the public would be more likely to accept a solution that had both been trailed in advance and which appeared fair and neutral.

It shold also go without saying that you'll be able to get juicy odds on Howard or Hague, if that's your thinking.

I am not sure that odds on something destined almost certainly not to happen can really be described as juicy.

Note the conditional. I was not endorsing. But that said, it still all depends on the relation between ods and chance.

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

I think that is the problem. It is taking a fraction of the traffic it was designed for.

As as road user, that's great. As a model for future investment in infrastructure, it doesn't look good.

Yes it did seem pointless given it was empty and you had just left the M6 which was mainly nose to tail, surely would be far better to at least vary price to balance traffic and encourage more use.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, not a follower (or detractor) of Pewdiepie, but isn't he the biggest Youtuber? Does that count as murky?

It cetainly counts as shit.

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Not cheap for sure, but few times I have used it the road was clear and unbelievably better than previous experiences on the old route. Think it was a fiver last time I used it.

No surprise that the road to and from SNP blighted Scotland is free of traffic.

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Not cheap for sure, but few times I have used it the road was clear and unbelievably better than previous experiences on the old route. Think it was a fiver last time I used it.

I agree Malcolm. The times I have used it it seemed very good value for money for getting around Birmingham without the usual snarl ups. The lack of lorries was noticeable and part of the attraction. Whether the return works on that basis I don't know but it worked for me.

Dartford I found more irritating as a very occasional user. We were on holiday in England and frankly had a lot better things to do than trying to make internet payments at some unknown website. We got a letter and paid it after we got home. I can see the very considerable attraction for locals but for visitors it is not great.

DavidL said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Not cheap for sure, but few times I have used it the road was clear and unbelievably better than previous experiences on the old route. Think it was a fiver last time I used it.

I agree Malcolm. The times I have used it it seemed very good value for money for getting around Birmingham without the usual snarl ups. The lack of lorries was noticeable and part of the attraction. Whether the return works on that basis I don't know but it worked for me.

Dartford I found more irritating as a very occasional user. We were on holiday in England and frankly had a lot better things to do than trying to make internet payments at some unknown website. We got a letter and paid it after we got home. I can see the very considerable attraction for locals but for visitors it is not great.

Why on earth don't they let you pay in advance? Bonkers.

rottenborough said:

If the constitutional complexities of a no-confidence vote are as described in the header, then this further reinforces the argument that removing the royal prerogative (via the PM) of dissolving parliament and calling an election (thanks to the FTPA) was bonkers.

Another fine mess that Osborne and Clegg have left us with.

I still disagree. The complexity seems to arise when you want to call a no confidence vote in yourself for partisan reasons. Presuming a scenario where the government really loses the confidence of the chamber rather than pretends to because it sees an opportunity to increase its majority and bypass the purpose of act, then a short period for the chamber to try to decide on a replacement would not be unreasonable or as problematic.

That it is not designed to deal with one party seeking to abuse it for their own advantage is not a flaw of the act. That it is in fact complicated to try to manipulate it for partisan advantage might be seen, in fact, as an advantage.

If there's consensus for a new election no problem. If there is a time the nation, not a party, genuinely needs a new election, do we think so little of other parties to think enough would not play ball? Even if their leadership were obstructive?

There's a lot of things people list as problems with the act which, intentionally or otherwise, seem like features not bugs.

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, what's happened at Dartford Crossing? Excessive tolls or have they been charging the wrong people?

Basically, they record your licence number as you pass. If you do not pay the fee (currently £2.50) before the end of the next day, you get a fine. There are alternative systems for locals and regular users, but if you only cross a couple of times a year then it's a pain in the backside.

It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.

Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.

Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.

It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.

(rant mode off)

There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...

The abolition of the toll booths has been a fantastic development knocking huge amounts of time off trips involving the Dartford Crossing. For all the downsides of the new system it's far better than waiting for 3 hours as I have in the past. The minor inconvenience of paying online is nothing compared with that.

As soon as we're out of the EU, the UK can charge tourists and foreign trucks what they like on entry/exit.

and as soon as we do that, they will do it to us. sub optimal IMHO

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, what's happened at Dartford Crossing? Excessive tolls or have they been charging the wrong people?

Basically, they record your licence number as you pass. If you do not pay the fee (currently £2.50) before the end of the next day, you get a fine. There are alternative systems for locals and regular users, but if you only cross a couple of times a year then it's a pain in the backside.

It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.

Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.

Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.

It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.

(rant mode off)

There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...

The abolition of the toll booths has been a fantastic development knocking huge amounts of time off trips involving the Dartford Crossing. For all the downsides of the new system it's far better than waiting for 3 hours as I have in the past. The minor inconvenience of paying online is nothing compared with that.

As soon as we're out of the EU, the UK can charge tourists and foreign trucks what they like on entry/exit.

and as soon as we do that, they will do it to us. sub optimal IMHO

Not if they check the number plate on exit to see if you used a toll in the UK?

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

If the constitutional complexities of a no-confidence vote are as described in the header, then this further reinforces the argument that removing the royal prerogative (via the PM) of dissolving parliament and calling an election (thanks to the FTPA) was bonkers.

Another fine mess that Osborne and Clegg have left us with.

I still disagree. The complexity seems to arise when you want to call a no confidence vote in yourself for partisan reasons. Presuming a scenario where the government really loses the confidence of the chamber rather than pretends to because it sees an opportunity to increase its majority and bypass the purpose of act, then a short period for the chamber to try to decide on a replacement would not be unreasonable or as problematic.

That it is not designed to deal with one party seeking to abuse it for their own advantage is not a flaw of the act. That it is in fact complicated to try to manipulate it for partisan advantage might be seen, in fact, as an advantage.

If there's consensus for a new election no problem. If there is a time the nation, not a party, genuinely needs a new election, do we think so little of other parties to think enough would not play ball? Even if their leadership were obstructive?

There's a lot of things people list as problems with the act which, intentionally or otherwise, seem like features not bugs.

Agreed. Allowing the PM to choose the date of an election gives the party in power an advantage, why should they have that? The FTPA might also encourage longer term thinking which would be no bad thing.

MonikerDiCanio said:

JosiasJessop said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Not cheap for sure, but few times I have used it the road was clear and unbelievably better than previous experiences on the old route. Think it was a fiver last time I used it.

No surprise that the road to and from SNP blighted Scotland is free of traffic.

Oh come on. The section of the A74(M) north from Carlisle to Larkhall has to be one of the best and most picturesque major roads in the UK. It's invariably a pleasure to drive along ( I might also include the section of the M6 south over Tebay as well).

I love the coastal A1 through Northumberland, but it's a bit of a hassle to drive. The northern M6 and A74(M) is wonderful. Is there a better motorway or dual carriageway in the UK?

It's a noble prospect.

"The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!"
S. Johnson

Jonathan said:

SquareRoot said:

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

JosiasJessop said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, what's happened at Dartford Crossing? Excessive tolls or have they been charging the wrong people?

Basically, they record your licence number as you pass. If you do not pay the fee (currently £2.50) before the end of the next day, you get a fine. There are alternative systems for locals and regular users, but if you only cross a couple of times a year then it's a pain in the backside.

It's worse if, like my parents, they've just gone away on holiday and have no Internet access where they are. They have to phone me up and I have to go online and fight the demons that live in their system.

Worse, they incorrectly detect licence numbers and charge people fines who have not crossed the bridge.

Meanwhile non-UK residents are frequently getting away without paying the toll.

It would be better if the public had got a better deal over the toll extension. But all we got was a crummy variable speed limit scheme on part of the M25 along with the hard-shoulder-as-a-lane madness.

(rant mode off)

There are many ways it could be improved. Allowing a period of a week or a month before being fined, allowing both journeys on a holiday to be counted. Allowing you to find out how many trips you had made without having an account (although there would be privacy issues with that). Catching and fining more foreign drivers, etc, etc. But they prefer just to rake the money in ...

The abolition of the toll booths has been a fantastic development knocking huge amounts of time off trips involving the Dartford Crossing. For all the downsides of the new system it's far better than waiting for 3 hours as I have in the past. The minor inconvenience of paying online is nothing compared with that.

As soon as we're out of the EU, the UK can charge tourists and foreign trucks what they like on entry/exit.

and as soon as we do that, they will do it to us. sub optimal IMHO

Not if they check the number plate on exit to see if you used a toll in the UK?

the history of UK IT projects is littered with disaster. Look up Gordon Brown for examples especially HMRC

Morris_Dancer said:

F1: Vettel now second favourite, 5 to Bottas' 6, for the title. Ferrari down to 4.5 for the Constructors' [Ladbrokes].

Raikkonen's 11. May be worth a look at each way (fifth the odds, top three) if you believe Ferrari are tasty. I think he's roughly on a par with Bottas. Better car gets the Finn top 3 (if Red Bull aren't up there).

Clearly I should have filled my boots, but I'm happy with my relatively modest wager on the prancing Italians. With any luck, this could be rather an entertaining season.

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Whoever decided that the owners of the Dartford Crossing should be allowed to use their new tollgateless system should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's terrible. Awful. Dire. (Insert expletive here). It's simply not fit for purpose.

The M6Toll appears to have killed off any future toll motorways. I can only hope the Dartford crossing experience will kill off any similar toll schemes.

What is issue with M6 toll other than cost, any time I have used it , it has been great , clear road etc as opposed to the previous shambles of nose to tail for hours.

Lorries do far more damage to road surfaces than cars, and they've priced lorries off the toll road, meaning the old M6 gets more damage.

A few years back I travelled along it on a trip back from Scotland, and there were signs on pieces of cardboard stating that the price had gone up ...

Not cheap for sure, but few times I have used it the road was clear and unbelievably better than previous experiences on the old route. Think it was a fiver last time I used it.

No surprise that the road to and from SNP blighted Scotland is free of traffic.

You half witted dullard we are talking M6 in Birmingham. Though not surprised that you think that is in Scotland given your history.

Well, I'm pleased to have guessed this from your clue the other day! The FTPA does raise some tricky issues (partly by design, as others have said). My instinct would be that the desire to not make the state ridiculous certainly precludes Corbyn and probably also precludes the likes of GOD. Perhaps a new distinction between May's Government resigning and May herself resigning is more likely?

Richard_Tyndall said:

On topic.

I have not really followed the arguments around the FTPA so was wondering about something.

Is it not possible to simply repeal the act with a simple majority in Parliament?

Almost certainly.

Snag - May doesn't have a majority in one House of Parliament.