politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly Oprah Winfrey becomes second favourite for next Presi

Richard_Nabavi said:

He is, quite rightly, complaining that they are illegally advocating the favouring of non-UK firms (for example in procurement) whilst we still remain full members.

https://twitter.com/albertonardelli/status/950620119553773568

They wanted to enshrine it in UK law...

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

Sean_F said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Carolus_Rex said:

@ DavidL They're all too busy ogling the actresses in little black dresses and no underwear on the Mail sidebar.

@Cyclefree was talking about that yesterday. The mind set of actor folk is truly bizarre. I am wearing black because I am serious and have something to say but have you noticed my body piercings and new tattoo (henna natch)?

What does it matter what they wear?

Ask the Daily Mail. It seems to think that it does. And tens of millions of internet users seem to agree.

But showing off a lot of the body you have worked so hard to achieve whilst complaining about the objectification of women strikes me as amusing. I should be less immature.

They are complaining about abuse. What would you prefer them to wear?

You really shouldn't mistake me wact is these celebrities sell sex and sex appeal. Nothing excuses the Harvey Weinsteins of this world but there are much murkier waters to traverse.

So in other words you are saying that women should cover up if they are being abused and exploited. They can sell sex and sex appeal all day long and wear only a straw hat and a big smile and that should make no difference.

Because you know we don't want to go down the "th** we** as**** f** *t" route, do we?

.

1st The Cyclefree Dragoon Guards notwithstanding ( ), my point is that I started to pen a response yesterday about the Golden Globes which said much the same thing: for women objecting about being objectified they seemed to be wearing very few clothes.

.

And the cryptic bit was: they were asking for it.

That reminds me of when David Starkey did his phone in programme on LBC. One caller said she liked to go to nightclubs dressed as a medieval wench, at the same time, complaining about the attention she got from men. Starkey replied that unfortunately, most men haven't taken degrees in feminist sociology.

What is the moral of that story?

That if you're trying to attract attention to yourself, don't complain about attracting attention to yourself.

Am I the only one who remembers this, from a decade ago?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WVu6A-Fvw

Richard_Nabavi said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/950767401280442369

The Minister for Winging It has rather let the cat out of the bag on what the government really thinks about a No Deal Brexit.

Still there's something odd about that letter where David Davis wants to sue the EU Commission for implementing Article 50. I know Davis isn't the smartest cookie, but what is he on about, who leaked the letter and why?

He is, quite rightly, complaining that they are illegally advocating the favouring of non-UK firms (for example in procurement) whilst we still remain full members. There is absolutely no doubt that he is right that this is discrimination against the UK, which is supposed to be forbidden under EU law. Of course there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of successfully challenging this in the ECJ, but that isn't the point. It's a political/negotiating point, a counter to the EU trying to claim that we can't engage in trade talks with non-EU countries under EU law whilst we remain members (and more importantly, during the transition). Sauce for geese and ganders.

Don’t waste your breath. To them the EU can do no wrong.

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, 10/1 is about right. And about 60% of that uncertainty is whether or not she runs. If she does, much depends on what happens on the other side of the ticket. If she takes on Trump, she wins. But Trump may be brought down in office (unlikely) or in primaries (more likely but still well under 50%).

If there's a non-Trump GOP candidate, a more conventional Dem politician might be a better bet. But - and this is a big but - what Oprah said and did at the Golden Globes cannot be unsaid or undone. She was a voice for millions (and in a way and on a subject that Hillary could never really be, given Bill's history).

Is there anyone else that could do that? Bernie, perhaps. But Bernie is old and his politics of niche appeal. Oprah has genuinely lived the American Dream. Daddy didn't set her up in business. In fact, daddy and mummy gave her a rotten start in life.

If she wants it, her weakest card is her inexperience in politics, coming after Trump has demonstrated the dangers of a non-professional politician. But Oprah is a very very different character to Trump and might be able to assuage fears on that score. We should take the prospect of her becoming the 46th president very seriously.

I can see the merits of your arguments but 10/1 strikes me as extremely skinny for a person unlikely to run. She has an extremely successful brand and business that has made her fabulously wealthy, almost certainly way wealthier than Trump. Why would she want to risk that by entering partisan politics? I think it is more like 20-30/1 that she will even run. If she did and really went for it she would be a contender.

Quite. Definitely a lay at 10 or 11. I doubt she’ll run, she’s nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose from the scrutiny of standing for public office.

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, 10/1 is about right. And about 60% of that uncertainty is whether or not she runs. If she does, much depends on what happens on the other side of the ticket. If she takes on Trump, she wins. But Trump may be brought down in office (unlikely) or in primaries (more likely but still well under 50%).

If there's a non-Trump GOP candidate, a more conventional Dem politician might be a better bet. But - and this is a big but - what Oprah said and did at the Golden Globes cannot be unsaid or undone. She was a voice for millions (and in a way and on a subject that Hillary could never really be, given Bill's history).

Is there anyone else that could do that? Bernie, perhaps. But Bernie is old and his politics of niche appeal. Oprah has genuinely lived the American Dream. Daddy didn't set her up in business. In fact, daddy and mummy gave her a rotten start in life.

If she wants it, her weakest card is her inexperience in politics, coming after Trump has demonstrated the dangers of a non-professional politician. But Oprah is a very very different character to Trump and might be able to assuage fears on that score. We should take the prospect of her becoming the 46th president very seriously.

I can see the merits of your arguments but 10/1 strikes me as extremely skinny for a person unlikely to run. She has an extremely successful brand and business that has made her fabulously wealthy, almost certainly way wealthier than Trump. Why would she want to risk that by entering partisan politics? I think it is more like 20-30/1 that she will even run. If she did and really went for it she would be a contender.

There is a momentum to her speech that may ultimately if not force her to run, then certainly make it difficult and damaging not to. I agree that 10/1 looks skinny but I think she comfortably beats any Democrat that's been speculated about until now.

RobD said:

Don’t waste your breath. To them the EU can do no wrong.

LOL

The EU are planning for "Brexit means Brexit" and "No Deal is better than a bad deal", and somehow you are pissed at them, not at the fuckwits in Government who came up with those lines?

Jonathan said:

Is Greening now perfectly positioned to challenge May? She could play Thatcher to May's Heath.

Except she is even more Heath than May and there is now a no confidence vote not a direct challenge

Jonathan said:

Is Greening now perfectly positioned to challenge May? She could play Thatcher to May's Heath.

Post of the year.

FF43 said:

His real complaint is that the EU doesn't allow for possible extensions of arrangements during transition or in the eventual trade deal.

We are still a 3rd country during transition, or we have not left.

This is what the Brexiteers have been pitching all along. We are out in March 2019.

And now they are whining about the consequences

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/950780306583322624

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, 10/1 is about right. And about 60% of that uncertainty is whether or not she runs. If she does, much depends on what happens on the other side of the ticket. If she takes on Trump, she wins. But Trump may be brought down in office (unlikely) or in primaries (more likely but still well under 50%).

If there's a non-Trump GOP candidate, a more conventional Dem politician might be a better bet. But - and this is a big but - what Oprah said and did at the Golden Globes cannot be unsaid or undone. She was a voice for millions (and in a way and on a subject that Hillary could never really be, given Bill's history).

Is there anyone else that could do that? Bernie, perhaps. But Bernie is old and his politics of niche appeal. Oprah has genuinely lived the American Dream. Daddy didn't set her up in business. In fact, daddy and mummy gave her a rotten start in life.

If she wants it, her weakest card is her inexperience in politics, coming after Trump has demonstrated the dangers of a non-professional politician. But Oprah is a very very different character to Trump and might be able to assuage fears on that score. We should take the prospect of her becoming the 46th president very seriously.

I can see the merits of your arguments but 10/1 strikes me as extremely skinny for a person unlikely to run. She has an extremely successful brand and business that has made her fabulously wealthy, almost certainly way wealthier than Trump. Why would she want to risk that by entering partisan politics? I think it is more like 20-30/1 that she will even run. If she did and really went for it she would be a contender.

There is a momentum to her speech that may ultimately if not force her to run, then certainly make it difficult and damaging not to. I agree that 10/1 looks skinny but I think she comfortably beats any Democrat that's been speculated about until now.

I'm old fashioned. I like my politicians to have experience of running public bodies, of developing policy in the public sphere and having some understanding of how alliances are put together to get things done. For all her remarkable business acumen Oprah has none of this but after Trump anything is possible. Her name recognition is certainly in the stratosphere compared with any possible contender including Bernie.

Cyclefree said:

My views on Powerpoint presentations make my views on cappuccinos seem like soft fluffy nonsense!

https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint

Oprah 6/1 for the Dem's nomination (BF). What implied chance does that make her having got the nom?

@Cyclefree nails it on both cappuccinos and powerpoint. Truly a woman for world dictatrix.

AlastairMeeks said:

@Cyclefree nails it on both cappuccinos and powerpoint. Truly a woman for world dictatrix.

And she nails it on the Daily Mail/Virgin spat.

I'm hopeful that she will show no mercy on the pineapple/pizza issue, though.

Another interesting thread from Mr Smithson.

I have been thinking about this today. Funnily enough, I think Oprah's ideal opponent is Trumpton – thanks to her world-class media skills she would best him on telly and in the debates and, as a living embodiment of the American Dream (a self-made woman), she neutralises his entrepreneurial advantage that played so well in 2016 ("Trump isn't in anyone's pocket – he is independently wealthy").

Why then do I think she is too short at 10-1? Because I am far from convinced that Trumpton will run in 2020. If he thinks he will get beat (which is quite likely against a decent Democratic opponent) I think he'll back out on health grounds*. Oprah is less effective against a professional politician who can wind her up as being another fluffy sleb rather than a serious candidate.

(*In fact, this might be genuine. He will be 74 by then and has a terrible diet based on cheeseburgers and milkshakes, albeit a teetotal one.)

Official website list of Cabinet Ministers - Lidington shown in number 2 position and I note he was also sitting opposite May in number 2 position - so looks like he'll be the PMQs stand-in.

Other notable big rise is Gauke - now in number 8 position - looks to me as if Hammond were to go at any point (with May still PM) then Gauke (former Chief Sec) could well be favourite to be next Chancellor.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

SquareRoot said:

So what?. different jobs , different level of responsibility..

Because the government have been touting gender equality...

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

He is prisons minister which is actually an important role in an area that interests him

Although only one major prison riot away from ending his ministerial career. So a tough gig.

https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/950775675186794497

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

His father lived there and the book is about his walks from Hadrian's Wall up to there and from Cumbria into the borders. I bought it for my other half for Xmas; he started reading it - and then I picked it up and loved it - so he is moaning that I've stolen his present.

(I have promised him a cappuccino in recompense but he is still harrumphing.....)

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

LOL, I am always amazed at the encyclopedic knowledge on here regarding Scotland.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

His father lived there and the book is about his walks from Hadrian's Wall up to there and from Cumbria into the borders. I bought it for my other half for Xmas; he started reading it - and then I picked it up and loved it - so he is moaning that I've stolen his present.

(I have promised him a cappuccino in recompense but he is still harrumphing.....)

I loved the places in between. It was beautifully written and paced. I will have to try The Marches.

Jonathan said:

Is Greening now perfectly positioned to challenge May? She could play Thatcher to May's Heath.

I wonder too. Parties tend to favour previous oponents when the regime changes. She may benefit from that.

Foxy said:

Jonathan said:

Is Greening now perfectly positioned to challenge May? She could play Thatcher to May's Heath.

I wonder too. Parties tend to favour previous oponents when the regime changes. She may benefit from that.

If May goes the Tory membership will in all probability elect someone to her right and a Leaver, Greening is neither

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

Met Nicky a couple of times, stone cold sober, highly intelligent and very polite, and totally pissed bouncing off the side of a train at Waverley Station, walking along the platform. Totally wasted at Westminster, probably the best analytical and legal mind of his generation.

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Cyclefree nails it on both cappuccinos and powerpoint. Truly a woman for world dictatrix.

And she nails it on the Daily Mail/Virgin spat.

I'm hopeful that she will show no mercy on the pineapple/pizza issue, though.

I'm a Dictatrix. Not Miss Whiplash.

*mindbleach*

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

I think you also need to be a billionaire:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/2020-wealthy-democrats-steyer-winfrey-trump-328187

(Not to mention a US citizen.)

Still, that's good news for those who want to enjoy an innocent sprinkle unmolested, I suppose...

Trump was the first billionaire to be elected President (though JFK was son of a billionaire in today's terms). If it is Trump then Oprah that would be back to back billionaires, which is why Sanders still has a shot as a populist outsider against big money and big business

Oprah, if elected, would have the humblest background of any president. More so even than Lincoln.

Reagan and LBJ and Truman and Clinton also had pretty humble backgrounds but what she represents now is the billionaire class Hollywood elite, just as Trump represent the corporate elite, Sanders can present himself as neither

Nixon probably another example of a seemingly middle class/well-educated president with rather more humble beginnings

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

There is a momentum to her speech that may ultimately if not force her to run, then certainly make it difficult and damaging not to. I agree that 10/1 looks skinny but I think she comfortably beats any Democrat that's been speculated about until now.

I'm old fashioned. I like my politicians to have experience of running public bodies, of developing policy in the public sphere and having some understanding of how alliances are put together to get things done. For all her remarkable business acumen Oprah has none of this but after Trump anything is possible. Her name recognition is certainly in the stratosphere compared with any possible contender including Bernie.

Hillary Clinton was all those things. She was a reasonably competent and certainly hardworking public servant. It didn't do her any good. The same could be said of Trump's primary challengers - Rubio, Jeb Bush and others.

Oprah would be a values candidate, taking Trump head on. I think she would win because her values are a lot more attractive than his.

Scott_P said:

hps://twitter.com/mailonline/status/950775675186794497

Heartbreaking.

No doubt many will be bemoaning his terrible treatment when he has already been 'punished' for years, despite no such thing having happened.

malcolmg said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

LOL, I am always amazed at the encyclopedic knowledge on here regarding Scotland.

I think Scotland is in the north, and that's about all I'm prepared to state with confidence.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@Cyclefree nails it on both cappuccinos and powerpoint. Truly a woman for world dictatrix.

And she nails it on the Daily Mail/Virgin spat.

I'm hopeful that she will show no mercy on the pineapple/pizza issue, though.

I hope she is, my new year's resolution is to be more open to pineapple on pizza, or at least more open to those who do enjoy it.

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, apropos the Daily Mail/Virgin spat, that it is nice to see an example of the point I was making in this header, only the other day - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/03/challenges-challenges/.

"The self-righteous intolerance of those seeking to deny others a voice is its shrill companion. In truth, both have a curiously religious approach to the idea of debate. The all too frequently used “You can’t say that.” / “I am offended” / “Bigoted” / “He’s a Marxist” / “hate speech” mantras are in danger of making mini-Torquemadas of us all.")

Curious that "the Daily Mail appeaser of Hitler in the 1930's" line is regularly trotted out and yet "the Communists allied with Hitler while Britain was fighting him" line is never used against those who, ooh, I don't know, think that Stalin was misunderstood (the Opposition Leader's press spokesman) for instance or against those who speak at rallies with flags of Stalin behind them (the Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) for instance.

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, apropos the Daily Mail/Virgin spat, that it is nice to see an example of the point I was making in this header, only the other day - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/03/challenges-challenges/.

"The self-righteous intolerance of those seeking to deny others a voice is its shrill companion. In truth, both have a curiously religious approach to the idea of debate. The all too frequently used “You can’t say that.” / “I am offended” / “Bigoted” / “He’s a Marxist” / “hate speech” mantras are in danger of making mini-Torquemadas of us all.")

Curious that "the Daily Mail appeaser of Hitler in the 1930's" line is regularly trotted out and yet "the Communists allied with Hitler while Britain was fighting him" line is never used against those who, ooh, I don't know, think that Stalin was misunderstood (the Opposition Leader's press spokesman) for instance or against those who speak at rallies with flags of Stalin behind them (the Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) for instance.

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)

MattW said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/950775675186794497

Surely the solution to that is simply to put him out one night like a recalcitrant cat, such that he is no longer a fugitive from justice?

Judging by what has been said about his personal habits, they will have to fumigate the place once he leaves.

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I know very little about Oprah. If Trump can be President I don't see why Oprah can't.

Still I can't help being surprised at what makes someone papabile these days. One fine speech? Is that it?

I have made ca. 100 very fine speeches to a variety of audiences globally (from Australia to the US) over the last 4 years. If fine speech-making is the measure of things and one speech = US Presidential candidate, what does 100 speeches get you? Dictatorette / Dictatrix / Leaderene (?) of the World?

PS Don't worry. Fat chance.

PPS Apologies for the badly disguised plug for my business. A girl has gotta eat. And I have an expensive gardening and shoe habit to fund.

I beat you on PowerPoint presentations.

My views on Powerpoint presentations make my views on cappuccinos seem like soft fluffy nonsense!

You sound a difficult lady to please.

I'm avoiding you at the Golden Globes.

Any woman who is worth it is difficult to please.

It will be easy to spot me at the Golden Globes. I will be fully (and elegantly) dressed.

I'd be dressed like the early 80s synth-pop band Imagination.

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, apropos the Daily Mail/Virgin spat, that it is nice to see an example of the point I was making in this header, only the other day - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/03/challenges-challenges/.

"The self-righteous intolerance of those seeking to deny others a voice is its shrill companion. In truth, both have a curiously religious approach to the idea of debate. The all too frequently used “You can’t say that.” / “I am offended” / “Bigoted” / “He’s a Marxist” / “hate speech” mantras are in danger of making mini-Torquemadas of us all.")

Curious that "the Daily Mail appeaser of Hitler in the 1930's" line is regularly trotted out and yet "the Communists allied with Hitler while Britain was fighting him" line is never used against those who, ooh, I don't know, think that Stalin was misunderstood (the Opposition Leader's press spokesman) for instance or against those who speak at rallies with flags of Stalin behind them (the Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) for instance.

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)

I suspect that I am of the generation that could have skeletons and still go into public office, precisely because social media did not exist for most of my life. My depravities are all stored in my memory not in some digital archive somewhere.

And, having grown up at a time when most people understood the distinction between what is suitable for a private life / intimacy and what is suitable in public, I have never understood - let alone felt the need to - share banal, let alone intimate, details of my life with all and sundry.

It is why I have spent a fair amount of my professional time in recent years trying to explain to (mostly) young men and women that what they put on chat, email and other media lasts, can be recovered and is usually read by lawyers, judges, regulators and self-appointed busybodies, all of whom are notorious for having no sense of humour and not much sympathy for human folly and frailty either.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/950772301204738050

In fairness it should be noted that he was (I understand) cleared. We should approve of people who stand aside while investigations are made being welcomed back if the suspicions prove unfounded. We assume accusations=guilt rather too readily.

NickPalmer said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/950772301204738050

We assume accusations=guilt rather too readily.

Indeed - and problematically the police were instructed to do so as well!

OchEye said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

Met Nicky a couple of times, stone cold sober, highly intelligent and very polite, and totally pissed bouncing off the side of a train at Waverley Station, walking along the platform. Totally wasted at Westminster, probably the best analytical and legal mind of his generation.

My mother sat next to him at the annual dinner of Hendon North Conservatives. He spent the evening trying to seduce her.

"Project Reality" - the rowback begins.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/278452/brexit-job-losses-may-lower-than-first-feared-says-city/amp

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, apropos the Daily Mail/Virgin spat, that it is nice to see an example of the point I was making in this header, only the other day - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/03/challenges-challenges/.

"The self-righteous intolerance of those seeking to deny others a voice is its shrill companion. In truth, both have a curiously religious approach to the idea of debate. The all too frequently used “You can’t say that.” / “I am offended” / “Bigoted” / “He’s a Marxist” / “hate speech” mantras are in danger of making mini-Torquemadas of us all.")

Curious that "the Daily Mail appeaser of Hitler in the 1930's" line is regularly trotted out and yet "the Communists allied with Hitler while Britain was fighting him" line is never used against those who, ooh, I don't know, think that Stalin was misunderstood (the Opposition Leader's press spokesman) for instance or against those who speak at rallies with flags of Stalin behind them (the Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) for instance.

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)

I suspect that I am of the generation that could have skeletons and still go into public office, precisely because social media did not exist for most of my life. My depravities are all stored in my memory not in some digital archive somewhere.

And, having grown up at a time when most people understood the distinction between what is suitable for a private life / intimacy and what is suitable in public, I have never understood - let alone felt the need to - share banal, let alone intimate, details of my life with all and sundry.

It is why I have spent a fair amount of my professional time in recent years trying to explain to (mostly) young men and women that what they put on chat, email and other media lasts, can be recovered and is usually read by lawyers, judges, regulators and self-appointed busybodies, all of whom are notorious for having no sense of humour and not much sympathy for human folly and frailty either.

Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

Sean_F said:

OchEye said:

DavidL said:

Cyclefree said:

Razedabode said:

JohnO said:

Razedabode said:

Is there nothing for Mercer? Or have I missed it?

Nothing for Johnny (not even the whips office) nor Rees-Mogg (but was he offered a job and declined?).

Surprised really. He's become a bit of a presence in the media, generally a good communicator on social media as well. Perhaps his stance on defence cuts recently went against him...a

He's written a very good book on the border area between Cumbria and Scotland where his family are from (Crieff). The Marches. I'm just finishing it. It contains a very loving and touching portrait of his father.

He's wasted in Justice. He should be in a department where his expertise and his knowledge of his constituency would be an asset. I think he is not in the right gang or does not have someone to promote him and have his back.

Err...Crieff is quite a long way from the borders. It is in Perthshire, more than 100 miles north of the borders. I had the misfortune of spending 2 miserable years at boarding school there a long time ago when Nicky Fairbairn was MP there. Now there was a character.

Met Nicky a couple of times, stone cold sober, highly intelligent and very polite, and totally pissed bouncing off the side of a train at Waverley Station, walking along the platform. Totally wasted at Westminster, probably the best analytical and legal mind of his generation.

My mother sat next to him at the annual dinner of Hendon North Conservatives. He spent the evening trying to seduce her.

Always nice to meet the son of a famous person..... ROFL.. (I think you should have added a few more words..) .

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)

I suspect that I am of the generation that could have skeletons and still go into public office, precisely because social media did not exist for most of my life. My depravities are all stored in my memory not in some digital archive somewhere.

And, having grown up at a time when most people understood the distinction between what is suitable for a private life / intimacy and what is suitable in public, I have never understood - let alone felt the need to - share banal, let alone intimate, details of my life with all and sundry.

It is why I have spent a fair amount of my professional time in recent years trying to explain to (mostly) young men and women that what they put on chat, email and other media lasts, can be recovered and is usually read by lawyers, judges, regulators and self-appointed busybodies, all of whom are notorious for having no sense of humour and not much sympathy for human folly and frailty either.

I think social media imprisons far more than it liberates.

It too often seems to liberate things which should remain imprisoned.

It is - or can be - a useful tool, provided you understand it and use it, rather than let it use you.

It is worth remembering that 99% of what is in most peoples' heads is not worth making public.

Opinions are like bottoms. Everyone has them. But it does not follow that all should be inspected. As someone once said.

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

Can I just say, apropos the Daily Mail/Virgin spat, that it is nice to see an example of the point I was making in this header, only the other day - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/01/03/challenges-challenges/.

"The self-righteous intolerance of those seeking to deny others a voice is its shrill companion. In truth, both have a curiously religious approach to the idea of debate. The all too frequently used “You can’t say that.” / “I am offended” / “Bigoted” / “He’s a Marxist” / “hate speech” mantras are in danger of making mini-Torquemadas of us all.")

Curious that "the Daily Mail appeaser of Hitler in the 1930's" line is regularly trotted out and yet "the Communists allied with Hitler while Britain was fighting him" line is never used against those who, ooh, I don't know, think that Stalin was misunderstood (the Opposition Leader's press spokesman) for instance or against those who speak at rallies with flags of Stalin behind them (the Shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) for instance.

Ooooh, you have skeletons. That sounds interesting.

What are they? ;-)

Well, of course I have. Doesn't everyone? If they've lived a full life. (Try anything once, except incest and folk-dancing, as someone once said.)

But I am also old and wise enough not to answer such a question.

Nice try, though.

Oh, indeed. And such things seem to rule you out of public office.

I'd much prefer if they didn't, but that's never going to happen.

I'll ask again next time I see you after a few gin and tonics ;-)

I suspect that I am of the generation that could have skeletons and still go into public office, precisely because social media did not exist for most of my life. My depravities are all stored in my memory not in some digital archive somewhere.

And, having grown up at a time when most people understood the distinction between what is suitable for a private life / intimacy and what is suitable in public, I have never understood - let alone felt the need to - share banal, let alone intimate, details of my life with all and sundry.

It is why I have spent a fair amount of my professional time in recent years trying to explain to (mostly) young men and women that what they put on chat, email and other media lasts, can be recovered and is usually read by lawyers, judges, regulators and self-appointed busybodies, all of whom are notorious for having no sense of humour and not much sympathy for human folly and frailty either.

Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

I've had to advise them not to do much worse than that!

Casino_Royale said:

Another domino falls in our fight to remain a free country:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/09/virgin-trains-to-stop-carrying-the-daily-mail

Only on PB could a private business stopping stocking a badly selling newspaper be a sign of oppression.

kle4 said:

Oh god, another Roy Moore?!

Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt and later pardoned by Donald Trump, will run as a Republican to replace retiring Senator Jeff Flake.

The 85-year-old was found guilty of violating a 2011 order to stop detaining migrants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42624410

Will they learn?

No. No. No.

Lay all day every day.

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

That's actually quite a low risk thing to do, given the extent to which one thing looks like another. Much more important, if your wife shops you for dishonesty over speeding points and you want to have a chat with your son about it, do it face to face and not by bloody text. And if you are planning to poison your spouse refrain from googling "best way to poison your spouse".

As Richard Dreyfus put it "I got that beat."

A firm I worked for had a client called Ken Richardson who owned Doncaster Rovers, and its ground. He wanted to sell the ground to a supermarket, for an enormous profit, but the council would not grant planning permission.

So, he decided to force the council's hand by burning down the football stadium. He hired an arsonist who claimed to be ex-SAS. He and his mooks got themselves filmed on CCTV, filling up jerry cans with petrol at a local petrol station. Better still, one of them left his mobile phone behind in a rucksack at the stadium. Then he topped it off by leaving a message on Richardson's answer phone "I've done that job for you, Ken."

Sean_F said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Sean_F said:

Try to persuade not to post pictures of their private parts on social media.

That's actually quite a low risk thing to do, given the extent to which one thing looks like another. Much more important, if your wife shops you for dishonesty over speeding points and you want to have a chat with your son about it, do it face to face and not by bloody text. And if you are planning to poison your spouse refrain from googling "best way to poison your spouse".

As Richard Dreyfus put it "I got that beat."

A firm I worked for had a client called Ken Richardson who owned Doncaster Rovers, and its ground. He wanted to sell the ground to a supermarket, for an enormous profit, but the council would not grant planning permission.

So, he decided to force the council's hand by burning down the football stadium. He hired an arsonist who claimed to be ex-SAS. He and his mooks got themselves filmed on CCTV, filling up jerry cans with petrol at a local petrol station. Better still, one of them left his mobile phone behind in a rucksack at the stadium. Then he topped it off by leaving a message on Richardson's answer phone "I've done that job for you, Ken."

One of my favourite LIBOR chats was the trader at Rabobank who wrote something like: "There's bigger crooks than us out there!" to one of his co-conspirators.

How right he was. The moron.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Rory Stewart MP becomes Minister of State at Ministry of Justice.

How long until he decides this politics lark is a waste of time?

He is prisons minister which is actually an important role in an area that interests him

Although only one major prison riot away from ending his ministerial career. So a tough gig.

As long as he doesn't want to machine-gun the rioters, he'll be better than one of his predecessors.....