Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Russia really has compromising material against Trump and p

SystemSystem Posts: 12,676
edited September 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Russia really has compromising material against Trump and planning to use it then there’s a few bets that need considering

Please not the footage of Trump and peeing hookers.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    First! Like Mrs May!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    Second like Mr Corbyn
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    *If you don’t know what a ‘golden shower’ is don’t google it, you’re better off not knowing.

    Seconded. As someone who googled MILF in front of tittering teenage niece & nephew....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    One does have to wonder whether Mr Isaev, director of the Russian Institute of Contemporary Economics would know....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,209
    How would enjoying water sports be considered a "high crime against America"?
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    edited September 2017
    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,782
    The details in the so-called Steele dossier appear to have been confirmed from at least three other sources. The actions of Mr. Trump can only be described as depraved. He cannot survive the humiliation, let alone the clear implication that he has been totally compromised by the Russians.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,779
    It's a curious threat, coming from someone with no obvious links to the Russian security service. But if there is no such footage, it's entirely pointless - Trump can simply shrug and ignore it. So the assumption presumably has to be that it does exist and they've chosen an unofficial person to raise it so as to fire a deniable warning shot.

    Whether it would in fact destroy his career I'm not sure. Conservative Americans are more robust about sexual misdemeanors than one might expect (cf. Clinton and indeed Trump with the pussy-grabbbing, which unlike the alleged golden shower is actually illegal non-consensual assault), and a bit of contrition goes a long way - saying he'd done some things before he went into politics that he now regrets might see him through.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    A compromising tape would be embarrassing for Donald Trump in its own right. Its release would beg the question what Russia had previously sought to get for its non-disclosure. And whether it had had any success.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,779
    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    NickPalmer said:

    Conservative Americans are more robust about sexual misdemeanors than one might expect

    I wonder if Melania agrees with that...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    On the immigration paper...

    @DPMcBride: Someone put a 'Draft Official Sensitive' watermark on their policy submission?! Yeah right. 'Written To Be Leaked' would be more accurate.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    Scott_P said:

    On the immigration paper...

    @DPMcBride: Someone put a 'Draft Official Sensitive' watermark on their policy submission?! Yeah right. 'Written To Be Leaked' would be more accurate.

    I've always assumed that 95% of "leaks" are really the government intentionally manipulating the media agenda.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,911
    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,351
    edited September 2017
    Scott_P said:

    On the immigration paper...

    @DPMcBride: Someone put a 'Draft Official Sensitive' watermark on their policy submission?! Yeah right. 'Written To Be Leaked' would be more accurate.

    Its got Sky News all excited. Sky News makes Fox look fair and balanced these days.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,051
    Scott_P said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Conservative Americans are more robust about sexual misdemeanors than one might expect

    I wonder if Melania agrees with that...
    looking at his previous efforts at marital harmony I doubt that will worry him too much

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Scott_P said:

    On the immigration paper...

    @DPMcBride: Someone put a 'Draft Official Sensitive' watermark on their policy submission?! Yeah right. 'Written To Be Leaked' would be more accurate.

    There is an interesting aside (do we really need to say this?) In the document about EU law allowing expired passports to be valid.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    FPT
    rcs1000 said:

    Wow.

    http://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2017/09/perlan-sets-new-world-record.html

    That’s awesome, shame there’s been very little publicity around it though.
    My personal record’s about 6,000’, but the mountains are somewhat bigger in Argentina than the UK.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,911
    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Conservative Americans are more robust about sexual misdemeanors than one might expect

    I wonder if Melania agrees with that...
    looking at his previous efforts at marital harmony I doubt that will worry him too much
    Roughly every 15 years he finds a new 30 year old woman, he’s about due for a new one.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/metofficestorms/status/905293443483783169

    https://twitter.com/claire_phipps/status/905302493499928576
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    edited September 2017
    Looks like Barbuda’s anenomter got broken by the wind!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,051
    Sandpit said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Conservative Americans are more robust about sexual misdemeanors than one might expect

    I wonder if Melania agrees with that...
    looking at his previous efforts at marital harmony I doubt that will worry him too much
    Roughly every 15 years he finds a new 30 year old woman, he’s about due for a new one.
    He'll probably apply for the diesel rebate
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    edited September 2017
    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,779
    AlastairMeeks said:

    A compromising tape would be embarrassing for Donald Trump in its own right. Its release would beg the question what Russia had previously sought to get for its non-disclosure. And whether it had had any success.

    The spin on that would be "The Russians know that I'm not blackmailable so they never even tried, this is just some faction trying to embarrass me because I'm standing up for America." Putin isn't going to admit to trying officially.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/905173551778590720
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    SouthamObserver said:

    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.

    I still find it amazing that only a handful of US States have anything like our impartial Boundaries Commission. Some of the shenaginans that goes on in the USA with regard to voter registration, polling stations and boundaries are the sort of crap we expect to see in Africa.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,678
    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,883
    Good morning, everyone.

    King Cole, quite.

    Mr. Sandpit, quite.

    F1: surprised there's no McLaren engine statement yet. I wonder if that's try to last minute wrangling with Renault, or could they really be thinking of sticking with Honda? I'd guess not, but if we don't hear something soon, that could be what's happening.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,351
    Sandpit said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.

    I still find it amazing that only a handful of US States have anything like our impartial Boundaries Commission. Some of the shenaginans that goes on in the USA with regard to voter registration, polling stations and boundaries are the sort of crap we expect to see in Africa.
    And there is the small detail of most States taking at least a week to complete their results, often longer. The whole system is not fit for purpose and embarrasses the US every time there is a reasonably close election.

    But I don't think the Kobach Commission is really looking to address that. Their job is to show that Trump really won the popular vote once those not allowed to vote are stripped out. A vanity project.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    They want a destabilised US.

    Russia often funds opposing groups in countries simultaneously.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.

    I still find it amazing that only a handful of US States have anything like our impartial Boundaries Commission. Some of the shenaginans that goes on in the USA with regard to voter registration, polling stations and boundaries are the sort of crap we expect to see in Africa.
    And there is the small detail of most States taking at least a week to complete their results, often longer. The whole system is not fit for purpose and embarrasses the US every time there is a reasonably close election.

    But I don't think the Kobach Commission is really looking to address that. Their job is to show that Trump really won the popular vote once those not allowed to vote are stripped out. A vanity project.
    Quite. How does it ever take more than a day to get an election result anywhere, surely the local council should just throw everyone at counting the votes until the result’s declared? The only decision to make is whether they have the counters work night shift or day shift.

    Florida 2000 was hillarious as an outsider, why on Earth couldn’t they have recounted everything manually within 24 hours?

    Don’t start me on voting machines though, the opinion of every independent IT guy is that paper and pencil, with humans counting votes, is the best election system.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2017
    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.
    As someone who’s been in favour of the reduction to 600 MPs since 2010, I’d say that those two comments are probably the best arguments against it.

    Maybe a minor boundary change done in anticipation of a 2020 election is now the right way to go.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    edited September 2017
    Monksfield said:

    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
    QE does not cause a direct increase in the money supply - it is not 'printing money' as many people claim. It is the swapping of longer term financial assets for cash - that part has no effect on the money supply. The commercial banks then use this cash as reserves and expand the money supply via the process of fractional reserve banking. The overall effect is to increase the money supply.

    The fact is that inflation is very high as a result. What has changed is the definitions - the CPI does NOT measure inflation. However, the press and Government says it does so people think it is true. The CPI in fact measures the amount of money needed to maintain a hypothetical standard of living for a hypothetical individual. As long as you assume (and they do) that this individual can substitute cheaper goods and services if prices rise and that their standard of living is unaffected, actual price inflation can be happily ignored.

    If there were any monetarists left, they would remind us that there is no difference between inflation in consumer prices and inflation in asset prices - they are both caused by an increase in the money supply. However, if every tax and policy incentive encourages people to inflate asset prices and not consumer prices, then that is where the inflation created by QE will go. Which is, unfortunately, exactly the problem that caused the GFC.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,439
    There is a disruption in the force....

    Star Wars: Episode IX director Colin Trevorrow quits
    http://news.sky.com/story/star-wars-episode-ix-director-colin-trevorrow-quits-11022682
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.
    Wasn't the original point that after we leave, there will be more legislation undertaken directly in UK, rather than directives from Brussels?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.
    Very true. Russia is just trying to destabilise everywhere else.

    That probably includes the story of the “golden shower”, which I doubt actually happened but the suggestion it might have done will upset a lot of conservative Americans who voted for Trump.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
    It's defined explicitly in the bill, two years from exit day.

    It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
    No, but I think that he is seen as a way to disrupt and divert British politics similar to Corbyn and Momentum in that they are useful forces to use to weaken British power and influence.

    The Moggasm is more endogenous. Brexiteers are casting around to try to find someone who still believes in it to lead the faltering campaign. May's three Brexiteers have the competence and sense of imminent defeat of the French Third Republic in 1940.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Monksfield said:

    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
    It's had a massive inflationary impact - but this time it has shown up in asset price inflation not consumer prices.

    (As an example let's say someone has surplus wealth of £1,000 that they don't need to convert into cash for any spending purposes.

    It generates an income of £50 per year.

    Then prices for investment assets triple, so the nominal value of their assets is £3,000. But it still only generates £50 a year of income and, if they sell it, they can only buy the same number of Amazon shares as before.

    If they still don't need cash are they, in any practical sense, any richer?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
    It's defined explicitly in the bill, two years from exit day.

    It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.

    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    edited September 2017
    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    JRM has no interest in the top job. He’s not going to do a Michael Gove and suddenly decide to stand when a vacancy arises.

    Gove’s standing was only ever to keep Boris out anyway, and a bloody good job he did of it too!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,271
    SouthamObserver said:

    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.

    I'm not sure Trump's base is that secure. It consists of blue collar workers who voted for him "because he gets things done" and don't care about his morals and evangelicals who do, but will support any president that promotes conservative values. The combination of the latters' disgust at his behaviour and the fact he isn't getting things done could see his support collapse
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    foxinsoxuk said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
    No, but I think that he is seen as a way to disrupt and divert British politics similar to Corbyn and Momentum in that they are useful forces to use to weaken British power and influence.

    The Moggasm is more endogenous. Brexiteers are casting around to try to find someone who still believes in it to lead the faltering campaign. May's three Brexiteers have the competence and sense of imminent defeat of the French Third Republic in 1940.

    David Davis stood up in Parliament yesterday and, with a straight face, claimed that nobody ever claimed leaving the EU would be simple!!!!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,883
    F1: although I think they have a solid chance, I am surprised the odds on Ricciardo/Verstappen are so short for Singapore. Between 8 and 9 on Betfair and Ladbrokes.

    Hmm. Might be worth a look anyway.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
    It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
    Great minds.....

    https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/905113562514948097
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    Sandpit said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    JRM has no interest in the top job. He’s not going to do a Michael Gove and suddenly decide to stand when a vacancy arises.

    Gove’s standing was only ever to keep Boris out anyway, and a bloody good job he did of it too!
    Nonsense. They are all interested in the top job!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    Monksfield said:

    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
    QE had a massive inflationary effect, making it positive at a time when inflation would otherwise have been negative.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    edited September 2017
    CarlottaVance said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
    It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
    Great minds.....

    https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/905113562514948097
    It's all well and good when applying the EU diktats!

    (is that a compliment or an insult, btw? ;) )
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,200
    The new leader of the Conservative Home Tory Members next Tory leader poll Jacob Rees Mogg confirms he is opposed to gay marriage and abortion in all circumstances on Good Morning Britain in line with Catholic teachings.

    Though he also says as these are free votes the law would not change with him as PM
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
    No, but I think that he is seen as a way to disrupt and divert British politics similar to Corbyn and Momentum in that they are useful forces to use to weaken British power and influence.

    The Moggasm is more endogenous. Brexiteers are casting around to try to find someone who still believes in it to lead the faltering campaign. May's three Brexiteers have the competence and sense of imminent defeat of the French Third Republic in 1940.

    David Davis stood up in Parliament yesterday and, with a straight face, claimed that nobody ever claimed leaving the EU would be simple!!!!
    Yes, it is rapidly becoming laugh a minute. Shame the consequences are not so serious, otherwise we could just sit around laughing at the fools.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,200
    edited September 2017
    foxinsoxuk said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
    No, but I think that he is seen as a way to disrupt and divert British politics similar to Corbyn and Momentum in that they are useful forces to use to weaken British power and influence.

    The Moggasm is more endogenous. Brexiteers are casting around to try to find someone who still believes in it to lead the faltering campaign. May's three Brexiteers have the competence and sense of imminent defeat of the French Third Republic in 1940.

    This despite barely any polls having Remain now ahead retrospectively
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,779
    RobD said:



    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    It's generally accepted that there are lots of laws and regulations where something like this is the only change needed and that such changes don't need scrutiny. However, not everything is being transposed. For example, to take my area of particular interest, the much-celebrated requirement in the Treaty of Lisbon that animals are sentient and full account should be taken of their welfare (Article 13 of the TFEU) has been quietly dropped. This isn't in the spirit of the Bill, since it's being presented as simply transferring the status quo, for MPs to amend as they in future see fit; it shouldn't be used to sneak in some changes.

    There are various ways to tackle this. One amendment being mooted is:

    Scope of delegated powers
    Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its Schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary—
    (a) to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU; or
    (b) for the purposes of implementing any obligations of the United Kingdom arising from the withdrawal agreement.

    - with a Committee established to identify any changes that need scrutiny. Such a committee would probably have a government majority of 1, which would enable them to nod through anything routine but flag up anything that needs discussion. That seems a constructive approach to me, though it doesn't cope with deliberate or accidental omission.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,200
    I
    SouthamObserver said:

    Trump is going nowhere. He has his base and they will forgive him anything. The key to his electoral survival is the ability of Republican state legislatures to prevent Democrat-leaning US citizens from voting. They seem to be pretty good at it.

    No tge key to his victory in 2016 was winning over blue collar Democrats in Pennsylvania and the Upper MidWest
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    Morris_Dancer said:

    F1: although I think they have a solid chance, I am surprised the odds on Ricciardo/Verstappen are so short for Singapore. Between 8 and 9 on Betfair and Ladbrokes.

    Hmm. Might be worth a look anyway.

    Any market on RB drivers for top 3/4 would be good, maybe an e/w on the win?
    Also looking at McLaren to score points in Singapore.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    HYUFD said:

    The new leader of the Conservative Home Tory Members next Tory leader poll Jacob Rees Mogg confirms he is opposed to gay marriage and abortion in all circumstances on Good Morning Britain in line with Catholic teachings.

    Though he also says as these are free votes the law would not change with him as PM

    I suppose he still opposes the separation of the church in england from Rome. I mean, it only happened 400-odd years ago.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,388
    Mr Borough,

    It takes two to negotiate.

    If the EU have decided their future is at stake, and they may as well fight like a trapped rat, I'd still put my money on the farmer with the gun.

    We'll just have to say to our negotiators ... No more Mr Nice Guy
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    edited September 2017
    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,200
    edited September 2017
    rottenborough said:

    HYUFD said:

    The new leader of the Conservative Home Tory Members next Tory leader poll Jacob Rees Mogg confirms he is opposed to gay marriage and abortion in all circumstances on Good Morning Britain in line with Catholic teachings.

    Though he also says as these are free votes the law would not change with him as PM

    I suppose he still opposes the separation of the church in england from Rome. I mean, it only happened 400-odd years ago.
    Just think, we could have Corbyn elected to reverse all Thatcher's economic reforms of the 1980s then JRM to reverse all Wilson's social reforms of the 1960s (albeit he says the latter are free vote issues)
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    I'm fast becoming disillusioned with all politicans on both sides (not that I was ever a fan of Rees-Mogg really).

    Can't we have some proper professional grown-ups and not nutters or incompetents?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    rottenborough said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    If Russia wanted Trump elected, whyu are they now releasing/threatening to release compromising mataterial.

    Or are they simply trying to destabilise the US.

    Russian foreign policy is to sow political discord amongst all rival powers, thereby giving Russia relative advantage, and taking the worlds eyes of themselves. This is across the board from Trump to Brexit to the Middle East.

    If you look at what the Russian troll farms do, they move seamlessly from whipping up support for Trump, Brexit, LePen, Islamophobia.

    They find plenty of useful idiots and fellow travellers in the West. They have got very good at it, and liberal powers (and internet companies in particular) seem unwilling to tackle it.

    Having built Trump they will now destroy him, turning America into a laughing stock with permanent reputational damage.

    Jacob Rees Mogg seems to be the latest project.

    He's Putin's puppet?
    No, but I think that he is seen as a way to disrupt and divert British politics similar to Corbyn and Momentum in that they are useful forces to use to weaken British power and influence.

    The Moggasm is more endogenous. Brexiteers are casting around to try to find someone who still believes in it to lead the faltering campaign. May's three Brexiteers have the competence and sense of imminent defeat of the French Third Republic in 1940.

    David Davis stood up in Parliament yesterday and, with a straight face, claimed that nobody ever claimed leaving the EU would be simple!!!!
    Yes, it is rapidly becoming laugh a minute. Shame the consequences are not so serious, otherwise we could just sit around laughing at the fools.

    And Davis thinks we should trust him to responsibly use the powers the Brexit bill gives to ministers!!

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
    A Catholic could say that he thinks the Church is right to retain the right to deny gay marriages in Church but that civil marriage is a civil issue and that is OK. Like our current situation.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
    Those arent views shared by the majority of the country now (thankfully).Those views seem generally to be the purview of bigots

    Him saying he wants free votes on it insinuates he wants the option of removing those rights if he was PM
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.

    It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.

  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    rottenborough said:

    HYUFD said:

    The new leader of the Conservative Home Tory Members next Tory leader poll Jacob Rees Mogg confirms he is opposed to gay marriage and abortion in all circumstances on Good Morning Britain in line with Catholic teachings.

    Though he also says as these are free votes the law would not change with him as PM

    I suppose he still opposes the separation of the church in england from Rome. I mean, it only happened 400-odd years ago.
    Just think, we could have Corbyn elected to reverse all Thatcher's economic reforms of the 1980s then JRM to reverse all Wilson's social reforms of the 1960s (albeit he says the latter are free vote issues)
    Free vote issues. so he will bring forward legislation on those issues?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    Slackbladder said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    I'm fast becoming disillusioned with all politicans on both sides (not that I was ever a fan of Rees-Mogg really).

    Can't we have some proper professional grown-ups and not nutters or incompetents?
    :+1:

    It really has got beyond a joke now. I am flicking though Wilson's autobiography. When you look at the talent and administrative abilities of his Cabinet compared to today's pols - it is very startling.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Slackbladder said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    I'm fast becoming disillusioned with all politicans on both sides (not that I was ever a fan of Rees-Mogg really).

    Can't we have some proper professional grown-ups and not nutters or incompetents?
    CD13 said:

    Mr Borough,

    It takes two to negotiate.

    If the EU have decided their future is at stake, and they may as well fight like a trapped rat, I'd still put my money on the farmer with the gun.

    We'll just have to say to our negotiators ... No more Mr Nice Guy

    Yup: show johnny foreigner some british steel and theyll soon come running
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,882
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.

    Only for protestants.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Slackbladder said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    I'm fast becoming disillusioned with all politicans on both sides (not that I was ever a fan of Rees-Mogg really).

    Can't we have some proper professional grown-ups and not nutters or incompetents?
    Germany, France and Canada have managed it somehow.

    Even Russia, though i guess having a dictator in all but name helps
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Monksfield said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Meanwhile, the Government is dropping the reduction in the number of MPs, which will force the Boundary Commission (due to report next month on the new boundaries) to start all over again: this probably kicks it into the post-election grass. Ironically, it's not entirely clear that in the current political map the changes would have helped the Conservatives - for instance, on 2017 voting, Broxtowe would merge with two Labour seats and become... two Labour seats. (What's that Tory rejoicing I hear?)

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/may-set-to-drop-manifesto-pledge-on-cutting-number-of-mps-hxrcr03np

    This was always going to happen, as I and others predicted here. There were no longer enough unaffected people to get a reduction through Parliament.
    Indeed. Sometimes one only needs to keep up with PB comments to know what the government will do in a few months time!

    Very good news imho.

    The 'gene pool' for Cabinet seems pretty stretched already without reducing MP numbers.
    It also makes some sense, given that MPs are going to be increasing their workload by not handing loads of stuff to Brussels.

    The government Brexit bill will significantly reduce MPs' workloads. The executive will have all the power and responsibility.

    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    You don't do it by handing over huge, unchecked power to the executive for a vaguely defined period of time:

    https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/905181490019000320
    It is amusing that the powers are fine when wielded by the EU, but as soon as the democratically-elected UK government has them it is an utter disaster.
    Great minds.....

    https://twitter.com/NickJTimothy/status/905113562514948097
    It's all well and good when applying the EU diktats!

    (is that a compliment or an insult, btw? ;) )

    Of course, in reality no EU Directive is ever transposed into UK law. All directives are enacted through Acts of Parliament which are subject to full scrutiny by MPs.

    It's amazing how few Leavers understand how these things work - even those who have operated at the heart of government.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
    That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.

    I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    rottenborough said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.

    Only for protestants.
    Time for a good stake burning, light up the faggots! (the wood kind!)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.

    It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.

    Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?

    He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,871
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.
    I’ve never really understood the support for the death penalty - Lee Rigby’s killers are sitting in solitary confinement, knowing they’ll never get out - that torture must be better than allowing them to be martyrs for their cause?

    One of the great positives of the English legal system is that they were charged with murder rather than terrorism, as they were caught literally red handed
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    619 said:

    Slackbladder said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    I'm fast becoming disillusioned with all politicans on both sides (not that I was ever a fan of Rees-Mogg really).

    Can't we have some proper professional grown-ups and not nutters or incompetents?
    Germany, France and Canada have managed it somehow.

    Even Russia, though i guess having a dictator in all but name helps
    Well France seems to be having buyers remorse over Macron already.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    NickPalmer said:

    RobD said:



    That's only while the laws are being transposed. In any case I am not sure how else you'd do it unless you are proposing every search and replace "EU" with "UK" etc. has to go through parliament, which just isn't feasible given the timeframe.

    It's generally accepted that there are lots of laws and regulations where something like this is the only change needed and that such changes don't need scrutiny. However, not everything is being transposed. For example, to take my area of particular interest, the much-celebrated requirement in the Treaty of Lisbon that animals are sentient and full account should be taken of their welfare (Article 13 of the TFEU) has been quietly dropped. This isn't in the spirit of the Bill, since it's being presented as simply transferring the status quo, for MPs to amend as they in future see fit; it shouldn't be used to sneak in some changes.

    There are various ways to tackle this. One amendment being mooted is:

    Scope of delegated powers
    Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its Schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary—
    (a) to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU; or
    (b) for the purposes of implementing any obligations of the United Kingdom arising from the withdrawal agreement.

    - with a Committee established to identify any changes that need scrutiny. Such a committee would probably have a government majority of 1, which would enable them to nod through anything routine but flag up anything that needs discussion. That seems a constructive approach to me, though it doesn't cope with deliberate or accidental omission.
    Seems a reasonable solution so long as the people on the committee are sensible.

    I'd suggest that it be an appointed committee of both houses as it is supposed to be practical. Worst outcome would be if it became politicised along Leave/Remain lines
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,388
    "Yup: show johnny foreigner some british steel and theyll soon come running."

    Well done, Mr 619. you're finally seeing sense. And don't forget the Remainers, they don't like it up 'em.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?
    That's bigging up my role too much. A dear friend of mine was working up the policy and I suggested the idea while we were having dinner together - told her that it could be an elegant compromise that could get a large part of the CofE on board.

    I'm sure other people had the same idea so - at best - I was one voice among many

    Just another small example of how Charles is not part of the Establishment elite :-D

  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,818
    Charles said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?

    He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
    He's allowed personal religious views, and seeing as there's 650 odd Mps there's room for all number of viewpoints in the house.

    Whether that makes him fit to be PM, or hold similar high office is another matter.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.

    It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.

    Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.

    So our elected representatives did have power?

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,704
    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.

    It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.

    Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.

    So our elected representatives did have power?

    Yeah, to implement what the EU told them. :smiley:
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    RobD said:

    SouthamObserver said:


    Who defines exit day?

    The EU has never had the powers the Brexit bill gives ministers whose manifesto was rejected by the majority of voters at the last election.

    I assume they want EU low to cease to apply pretty rapidly, and I thought that the EU have made it clear that transition cannot be another name for membership. Do you think there is going to be some dramatic erosion of worker's rights, or environmental protection during all this? I doubt the government has any time to consider more than a simple copy/paste of the entire acquis at this point. I am curious as to how you'd suggest getting the transition done in the time allotted?

    As for your second point, a majority of votes isn't a requisite.

    It's not wise to grant vast power to people on the assumption they will not use it. Best to have explicit safeguards in place.

    Turns out they already had the power when implementing the EU's decisions.

    So our elected representatives did have power?

    Yeah, to implement what the EU told them. :smiley:

    To implement policies they'd helped to craft and signed off on in the Council of Ministers.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,200
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.

    In line with the working classes probably
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,297
    Monksfield said:

    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
    There has been no inflation because we are in a liquidity trap. Banks hoard cash (because tbf they have been told to) and build up their reserves, hence businesses find it hard to obtain finance, hence don't make investments hence wages grow moderately. Household spending is up because household debt is up.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    HYUFD said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    What’s a Catholic suppposed to say?

    Am I the only one here (apart from @Charles who may have had a hand in it) who thinks the civil partnership was a very elegant solution?

    I wonder what his views are on the death penalty.

    In line with the working classes probably

    So not in line with the catholic church? He's a bit pick and mix?

  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Charles said:

    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/susannareid100/status/905328847717060608

    Fast forward my friends to the 1950s.
    So you are not allowed personal religious views anymore?

    He's said the law wouldn't change under him.
    He said he would allow a free vote on those issues. That's different to the law not changing.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,297
    Charles said:

    Monksfield said:

    archer101au said:

    justin124 said:



    In May 1979 inflation was 9.9%. It rose sharply in Thatcher's early months in office partly - albeit not entirely -due to Geoffrey Howe increasing VAT from 8% to 15% in his first Budget in June that year. This had a knock on effect on Trade Union wage claims. At the same time, nationalised industries were forced by the incoming Government to sharply increase their prices. Thus, much of the surge in inflation in the second half of 1979 was self -inflicted by the Thatcher Government. By Spring 1980 RPI inflation was at 22%.

    Inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply, not by changes in fiscal policy. If anyone (eg all current Governments) tell you that you can have massive increases in the money supply and low inflation, they are lying to you.
    So why has QE had no real inflationary effect? And what has been seen is driven by devaluation. Inflation is caused by a more complex range of factors including rate of full time employment.
    It's had a massive inflationary impact - but this time it has shown up in asset price inflation not consumer prices.

    (As an example let's say someone has surplus wealth of £1,000 that they don't need to convert into cash for any spending purposes.

    It generates an income of £50 per year.

    Then prices for investment assets triple, so the nominal value of their assets is £3,000. But it still only generates £50 a year of income and, if they sell it, they can only buy the same number of Amazon shares as before.

    If they still don't need cash are they, in any practical sense, any richer?
    that asset price inflation I think we are beginning to see unwind.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025