Wednesday’s news that William Hill will close about 700 betting shops over the next few months, around a third of its retail estate, puts the jobs of 4,500 company staff at risk (and up to 12,000 in the industry) and will also mean a cut of around £21m in media rights payments to Britain’s racecourses, on top of an unexpected £17m drop in the money collected by the Levy Board in 2018-19, which was revealed in May.
Only the staff who are going to lose their jobs can be seen as unfortunate or blameless, however, as the 15-year story of the disastrous decision to allow high-speed, high-stakes roulette into Britain’s betting shops draws towards what was always likely to be a painful conclusion.
William Hill, along with the other major chains, was allowed to suck billions of pounds from what were already deprived areas the length and breadth of Britain, when Labour’s 2005 Gambling Act legitimised the gaming machines which they had been quietly introducing to their shops for some time....
....Racing, meanwhile, is also facing up to the imminent loss of annual media rights payments of £30,000 per shop, not only from the 700 shops that William Hill expects to close but also from hundreds more of their competitor’s shops that are likely to go the same way. The BHA’s estimate is that the annual loss will be around £50-£60m once the FOBT saga finally reaches a conclusion. Wednesday’s announcement suggests that it may prove to be a conservative one.
It's rather like an interaction frequently seen between a man and a woman. The woman states her case quietly and reasonably; the man takes no notice. The woman tries again, quietly & reasonably; the man takes no notice. This goes on until the woman reaches screaming point. Then the man is terribly wounded and asks her: "Why can't you just say what you want, quietly and reasonably?"
This sounds like a straw woman argument to me. I'm sure this sceario occurs occaisionally, but I'm sceptical that it occurs "frequently"
Yes that's what I meant - a 25% chance of Brexit being cancelled via another referendum.
Which as I read things requires the election of a Labour government. Can't see a realistic route to Ref2 which does not include that.
At the moment a second referendum doesn't seem very likely, though that could change pretty quickly if the Gauke/Hammond tendency decide to back it when Boris becomes PM.
The most likely outcome is continual postponements and extensions of A50, which eventually will become de facto remain.
I don't think the EU27 will grant a further extension without a change of government. The Tories have squandered this extension.
After puffing No Deal, they will then try to blame the EU for it.
No, it makes me someone who respects democracy and the Leave vote.
Not a diehard Remainer who refuses to respect democracy and is determined to Stop Brexit
Vote Leave, Boris Johnson included, said No Deal wouldn’t happen, a No Deal Brexit doesn’t respect democracy.
The ballot paper just said leave or remain , it didnt say how, you can blame your chum Cameron for that
No. Cameron wasn't arguing for leave; he was arguing for remain. He did the legwork, got an agreement with the EU, and that was remain's position. There was no way he could have set out leave's position as well.
Leave, on the other hand, lied. They made contradictory promises that have proved impossible to reconcile, and hence we've ended up in the current position.
Hardcore leavers - and especially the Brexiteers - need to start taking some responsibility for this mess.
Cameron could have mandated a commission to specify what (realistic) model would be meant by "Leave". Just as John Howard did in 1997-1999.
It seems a sensible thing on the surface, but like many things, it was unworkable in practice.
The job was one for Brexiteers to do before the referendum. And they failed to do so, because they wanted to win.
It's time they grew up and accepted some responsibility.
Farage and the hardcore leavers could have been invited to contribute to the commission before the referendum like happened in Australia.
As for the Brexiteers they did do the job. They made compromises. They said they wanted a Brexit that took control of our laws and trade, one that took control of borders and left the jurisdiction of the ECJ. A Canada style Brexit in other words. They acknowledged officially that meant leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Yes some Brexiteers like our own Mr Tyndall wanted EEA style Brexit and they have every right to campaign for that but the Brexiteer campaigns did their homework and came up with a model.
I'm tempted to go back through the computer and look at some of the pb pages of the time, and some of the newspapers, because that's not what my memory tells me.
However it's a nice day, I've a couple of books to read, cricket to watch and, later, wine to buy.
And so many of the boomer generation, inexorably moving into retirement, are intending to spend down their property equity to fund their retirement. These properties (whether larger main homes or second or let properties) will pass into the hands of people who have to borrow to afford them, hence we are moving into a period of long term downward drag on prices
And if we ever get a government able to govern again more obstacles will be placed in the way of landlords (rent control, more security for tenants etc) and we might even start building more houses and both these factors would tend to push prices down.
Not by much as housebuilding is a low percentage of housing stock. While low interest rates may keep demand up for a bit longer, I think that the current building boom may quickly turn into a glut in the next year or two. London prices are falling and the ripples spread outwards from there.
I suspect that retirement spots on the coast might do well as the Costas become less easy.
Global warming could see a major reversal with the Spanish escaping the 45 degree temperatures flying over here to the 30 degree Costa del Margate and opening up long streets of tapas bars!
These deals will be to the great benefit of us all. There are, of course, the financial benefits: the United States is the number one country we trade with. But it would also put us at the heart of the drive for global free trade, and I am sure other deals will follow, from Japan to Australia, as we regain our rightful place as a global trading nation.
Claptrap from IDS who, like many, seems to have no idea what a free trade agreement is, what free trade is, or even to have read any of President Trump's tweets.
Cameron could have mandated a commission to specify what (realistic) model would be meant by "Leave". Just as John Howard did in 1997-1999.
You need to think that through, and what it would have meant. for instance, consider how Farage and the hardcore leavers would have reacted: they would have said it was a stitch-up, and used it as a weapon in their war.
It seems a sensible thing on the surface, but like many things, it was unworkable in practice.
The job was one for Brexiteers to do before the referendum. And they failed to do so, because they wanted to win.
It's time they grew up and accepted some responsibility.
Cameron set up the choice. In 1999 in Australia the monarchist John Howard presided over a referendum on whether Australia should be a republic. Before the referendum he had republicans take part in a commission that determined what form of a republic Australia would take if it was voted through.
I refer you to my answer to eristdoof.
Before the referendum, of course it was workable, and yes I have thought it through in more detail.
The "stitch up" argument as you call it was cast at John Howard, but it did him no harm Australia is still a monarchy and he went on to win the next general election.
Farage and UKIP would have been invited to contribute to the royal commission. Had he refused to cooperate would have made splintered the case for Leave and made Farage's case much weaker.
It is possible that a model proposed by Royal Commission would have won in a referendum, in which case it would have been much clearer what "the people" actually "willed" and prevented the mess we are in now.
A solicitor has been struck off after claiming that fraudsters tricked him into believing he had won £1.825m on a lottery.
Hugh Lansdell, 70, was Senior Partner at Norwich-based firm Hansells. When fraudsters contacted him to say he had won £825,000 in a lottery he was mug enough to take the bait and respond. Presumably not quite believing their luck that such a senior lawyer could be so naïve, the crooks replied to say that the figure had bumped up to £1.825m and Lansdell needed only to cough up an administration fee for the cash to be his*.
Over a two year period Lansdell made 59 payments totalling £1.49m in a bid to release the funds. These were charged to 29 of Hansells’ clients. The SDT heard that a psychologist had found that Lansdell had developed an “overvalued belief in both the power of prayer and the guidance of God, which then informed his interpretation of unfolding events and his decision making”. Which possibly explains how he might have fallen for the scam in the first place.
Just browsed some of the comments BTL - far less complimentary than I'd have expected. I wonder if Tory Britain is starting to view Boris and his minions as something of a pain in the arse.
And so many of the boomer generation, inexorably moving into retirement, are intending to spend down their property equity to fund their retirement. These properties (whether larger main homes or second or let properties) will pass into the hands of people who have to borrow to afford them, hence we are moving into a period of long term downward drag on prices
And if we ever get a government able to govern again more obstacles will be placed in the way of landlords (rent control, more security for tenants etc) and we might even start building more houses and both these factors would tend to push prices down.
Not by much as housebuilding is a low percentage of housing stock. While low interest rates may keep demand up for a bit longer, I think that the current building boom may quickly turn into a glut in the next year or two. London prices are falling and the ripples spread outwards from there.
I suspect that retirement spots on the coast might do well as the Costas become less easy.
Global warming could see a major reversal with the Spanish escaping the 45 degree temperatures flying over here to the 30 degree Costa del Margate and opening up long streets of tapas bars!
Would certainly improve food facilities in Frinton!
And so many of the boomer generation, inexorably moving into retirement, are intending to spend down their property equity to fund their retirement. These properties (whether larger main homes or second or let properties) will pass into the hands of people who have to borrow to afford them, hence we are moving into a period of long term downward drag on prices
And if we ever get a government able to govern again more obstacles will be placed in the way of landlords (rent control, more security for tenants etc) and we might even start building more houses and both these factors would tend to push prices down.
Not by much as housebuilding is a low percentage of housing stock. While low interest rates may keep demand up for a bit longer, I think that the current building boom may quickly turn into a glut in the next year or two. London prices are falling and the ripples spread outwards from there.
I suspect that retirement spots on the coast might do well as the Costas become less easy.
Global warming could see a major reversal with the Spanish escaping the 45 degree temperatures flying over here to the 30 degree Costa del Margate and opening up long streets of tapas bars!
Would certainly improve food facilities in Frinton!
Don't, I'm getting flashbacks to an overpriced cheese sandwich I had there from Spar.
And so many of the boomer generation, inexorably moving into retirement, are intending to spend down their property equity to fund their retirement. These properties (whether larger main homes or second or let properties) will pass into the hands of people who have to borrow to afford them, hence we are moving into a period of long term downward drag on prices
And if we ever get a government able to govern again more obstacles will be placed in the way of landlords (rent control, more security for tenants etc) and we might even start building more houses and both these factors would tend to push prices down.
Not by much as housebuilding is a low percentage of housing stock. While low interest rates may keep demand up for a bit longer, I think that the current building boom may quickly turn into a glut in the next year or two. London prices are falling and the ripples spread outwards from there.
I suspect that retirement spots on the coast might do well as the Costas become less easy.
Global warming could see a major reversal with the Spanish escaping the 45 degree temperatures flying over here to the 30 degree Costa del Margate and opening up long streets of tapas bars!
I am right in thinking No Deal absolutely screws (Leave supporting) farmers?
No. Some of them. Some sectors would disappear overnight. But many are phlegmatic and have seen much change in their farming lifetimes but yes, it is a can of whoop-ass opened that most would prefer to have stayed shut.
The EU Ref hustings I went to, which featured Douglas Carswell, also featured a farmer passionately in favour of leaving. His reason? Getting the EU subsidies involved a 30 page form!
Wonder what that idiot thinks now.
Didn't Phil Hammond promise to replicate the subsidies in full from his war chest? Of course, he'll soon be out on his ear, but presumably Boris also has that expenditure inked in.
Brexiters: A No Deal Brexit will let us reclaim £39bn we would have paid to the EU. Also Brexiters: We will spend significantly more than £26bn from our war chest if we no deal Brexit.
Sounds like a good deal to me. Leaves £13 bn left.in war chest.
The reality is that powerful sectors will get looked after because the government has no option. Think of Korea and the Chaebol. Farmers and manufacturers will get the deals they need as without the country will just fail. The losers will be the pensioners who voted Brexit as in the end they have no bargaining power.
They vote. That is all the bargaining power they need in a democracy.
I suspect with No Deal they are going to be in for a surprise like the 70's where inflation destroys their purchasing power....
So do all your fellow fearmongers. Doesn't mean much to those of us who aren't afraid.
I'm not afraid - in fact I'm fully invested in what is likely to occur as, (like Rees Mogg) I expect to make a fortune from No Deal.
Could you please tell us how, so we may do likewise?
Buy long-dated sterling puts.
I only understood two of those words. Oh, ok, I know what a "put" is but "long-dated"? And who do you buy them off?
is especially good - that's a really first-class article going well beyond the Cameron aspect.
On topic, the odd thing is that virtually nobody in politics is giving the consequences of Brexit serious thought. Johnson and Hunt are preoccupied with wooing the Tory fringes. Corbyn is preoccupied with fine-tuning the precise degree of Remainerism. The LibDems are agin it, but have no particular view on what to do if it happens. The Brexit Party are for it, but have literally no views on anything else. Civil servants who I talk to are all busy dealing with the immediate effects.
In short, nobody feels they have time to think about the longer term, as the short term is so complicated. Scary.
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Not quite. I’ll be sharing my winnings with fellow PB Tories who voted for Hunt and who regularly denounce Mark Reckless and pizzas laden with pineapple.
If Boris attempts to prorogue Parliament, I predict mass protest and even unrest.
I doubt he will try. I guess HM will make it clear on appointment, if he gets that far, that prorogation will not be granted unless an early date for a new session is set in accordance with usual practice.
These deals will be to the great benefit of us all. There are, of course, the financial benefits: the United States is the number one country we trade with. But it would also put us at the heart of the drive for global free trade, and I am sure other deals will follow, from Japan to Australia, as we regain our rightful place as a global trading nation.
Claptrap from IDS who, like many, seems to have no idea what a free trade agreement is, what free trade is, or even to have read any of President Trump's tweets.
"Rightful place" is such a revealing phrase. Sadly the delusion that Brexit will make the UK more important is very hard to shake.
And so many of the boomer generation, inexorably moving into retirement, are intending to spend down their property equity to fund their retirement. These properties (whether larger main homes or second or let properties) will pass into the hands of people who have to borrow to afford them, hence we are moving into a period of long term downward drag on prices
And if we ever get a government able to govern again more obstacles will be placed in the way of landlords (rent control, more security for tenants etc) and we might even start building more houses and both these factors would tend to push prices down.
Not by much as housebuilding is a low percentage of housing stock. While low interest rates may keep demand up for a bit longer, I think that the current building boom may quickly turn into a glut in the next year or two. London prices are falling and the ripples spread outwards from there.
I suspect that retirement spots on the coast might do well as the Costas become less easy.
Global warming could see a major reversal with the Spanish escaping the 45 degree temperatures flying over here to the 30 degree Costa del Margate and opening up long streets of tapas bars!
Would certainly improve food facilities in Frinton!
Don't, I'm getting flashbacks to an overpriced cheese sandwich I had there from Spar.
My youthful memory of being taken there is of a notice "No Picnicking on the Greensward'. Had a very pleasant trip five or so years ago with our U3a, though, although I'm ashamed to admit we ended up in 'Spoons. There Was No Alternative!
These deals will be to the great benefit of us all. There are, of course, the financial benefits: the United States is the number one country we trade with. But it would also put us at the heart of the drive for global free trade, and I am sure other deals will follow, from Japan to Australia, as we regain our rightful place as a global trading nation.
Claptrap from IDS who, like many, seems to have no idea what a free trade agreement is, what free trade is, or even to have read any of President Trump's tweets.
"Rightful place" is such a revealing phrase. Sadly the delusion that Brexit will make the UK more important is very hard to shake.
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Not quite. I’ll be sharing my winnings with fellow PB Tories who voted for Hunt and who regularly denounce Mark Reckless and pizzas laden with pineapple.
A solicitor has been struck off after claiming that fraudsters tricked him into believing he had won £1.825m on a lottery.
Hugh Lansdell, 70, was Senior Partner at Norwich-based firm Hansells. When fraudsters contacted him to say he had won £825,000 in a lottery he was mug enough to take the bait and respond. Presumably not quite believing their luck that such a senior lawyer could be so naïve, the crooks replied to say that the figure had bumped up to £1.825m and Lansdell needed only to cough up an administration fee for the cash to be his*.
Over a two year period Lansdell made 59 payments totalling £1.49m in a bid to release the funds. These were charged to 29 of Hansells’ clients. The SDT heard that a psychologist had found that Lansdell had developed an “overvalued belief in both the power of prayer and the guidance of God, which then informed his interpretation of unfolding events and his decision making”. Which possibly explains how he might have fallen for the scam in the first place.
1) John McCririck - some sadness. A complicated individual (aren't we all) - horse racing tv's Tony Hancock. Moments of genius yes and as an investigative journalist at the Sporting Life one of a group of extraordinary talented and knowledgeable people on a paper I thought was the finest of its day. Yet a difficult person to know and get to know I suspect. I saw him a few times on the racecourse - I could empathise, I find people difficult too.
2) Has anyone told Boris this isn't a GE? Trips to garden centres and sausage factories for a contest with 160,000 voters, not 40 million. Yet it is part of the GE preparation introducing the country to the new PM. It's remarkably Thatcher-like, all pretty pictures and nil political content. The positivity oozes from every pore and for that alone he'll do well.
3) We are left with those with those who believe leaving the EU without a WA will be a minor inconvenience and those who are already preparing to enrich themselves (further) by playing the markets on the old adage everyone's bad news is always someone's good news and then there are those who believe leaving without the WA will cause significant economic dislocation and damage. Some will be right, some will be wrong and some will get rich whatever happens.
If he’d gone into the City - the usual place where entitled twillocks like him often end up - I am 100% certain that he would have ended up under investigation and being interviewed by the likes of me.
is especially good - that's a really first-class article going well beyond the Cameron aspect.
On topic, the odd thing is that virtually nobody in politics is giving the consequences of Brexit serious thought. Johnson and Hunt are preoccupied with wooing the Tory fringes. Corbyn is preoccupied with fine-tuning the precise degree of Remainerism. The LibDems are agin it, but have no particular view on what to do if it happens. The Brexit Party are for it, but have literally no views on anything else. Civil servants who I talk to are all busy dealing with the immediate effects.
In short, nobody feels they have time to think about the longer term, as the short term is so complicated. Scary.
The whole British politician system (and arguably our economic one also) is geared to the short term. No-one is worrying about the future. Since the Brexit fiasco was foist upon us, the focus has been even more to the short term.
Only the Chinese, it seems, are thinking twenty years ahead.
Worth watching last night’s Newsnight for a report on what such a trade deal might mean for NICE and the cost of drugs for the NHS.
I did, and thought a mention might have made it into the header. While the figures bandied about were misleading - the chances of our paying US prices for pharmaceuticals are pretty slim - there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be an item on the US agenda.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that. (And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
Unless they have an alternate PM lined up (from whatever party), that's too late.
Parliament says "Do this"
Boris says "No"
Parliament says "We'll No Confidence you"
Boris says "Okay. Try it. I think you're bluffing"
Conservatives against No Deal now have to make the fateful call to sacrifice their own careers or not. Massive bottle check time
IF they go through with it, they have to win. Assume they do, who becomes PM? Will they elevate Corbyn, Leader of the Opposition? (I have doubts) Will they nominate another Tory? If so, will Labour, SNP, LDs, etc, support to a sufficient extent? (Not at all trivial) Will they support a Labour alternative? If so, will Corbynites in Labour accept that? (Again, not exactly a no-brainer) Will they elevate a Lib Dem or SNP or other candidate to Number Ten? (Pause for hollow laughter)
If they haven't solved that ahead of time, it'll be very fraught to try to do it during that time.
If they get through two weeks without squaring that circle, the five-week-plus clock starts for an election, during which period Boris remains PM.
Note that two weeks plus five weeks (plus leftover days to the next Thursday) cannot fit in October before October 31st. Maybe Parliament could pass legislation to accelerate the campaign, but to do so in almost zero time to shorten the campaign to a week or so at most would seem implausible to the extreme.
time was people were banished to conhome as punishment for misdemeanours on here...
Interesting they think membership is up substantially from 120 to 160k.
I think the Tories under Boris (in particular) should try and go mass membership, with say a £5 or £10 per year charge only rather than £25 at present.
Farage and the hardcore leavers could have been invited to contribute to the commission before the referendum like happened in Australia.
As for the Brexiteers they did do the job. They made compromises. They said they wanted a Brexit that took control of our laws and trade, one that took control of borders and left the jurisdiction of the ECJ. A Canada style Brexit in other words. They acknowledged officially that meant leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union.
Yes some Brexiteers like our own Mr Tyndall wanted EEA style Brexit and they have every right to campaign for that but the Brexiteer campaigns did their homework and came up with a model.
You really aren't thinking this through. Such a commission would have helped hardcore leavers, not hindered them, as it wouldn't have met their vision of a pure hard Brexit. Perhaps the thing to do would be to have agreed to join, and then either leave before it began: "They're stitching us up!", or midway through: "This is the establishment's cockamamie concept of Brexit, not real Brexit."
Then, when the commission unveiled its proposals, they had something firm to argue against: a real betrayal. And we'd be just where we are now.
Do you not think Farage would have seen what happened in Australia, and realised that it was both a massive trap if he took part, and a massive opportunity if he was against it?
As for your last couple of paragraphs: having talked to many people from many different backgrounds who voted leave, I utterly disagree. Too many were promised different things.
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Not quite. I’ll be sharing my winnings with fellow PB Tories who voted for Hunt and who regularly denounce Mark Reckless and pizzas laden with pineapple.
damn.... falls at the last fence....
I’ll make an exception for you.
Your profile pic gets you a get out of jail card with me.
Not been focusing much on politics recently, so just catching up a bit.
I wonder if Jeremy Hunt has blown his chance of being PM with his idiotic, unthinking position on hunting in England. He clearly lacks the *instinct* a successful leader needs for steering clear of toxic, infected topics. Boris lacks this instinct too, but for Hunt his USP was that he was not a buffoon. Bye bye USP.
He had little to no chance before it and zero chance now.
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Not quite. I’ll be sharing my winnings with fellow PB Tories who voted for Hunt and who regularly denounce Mark Reckless and pizzas laden with pineapple.
damn.... falls at the last fence....
I’ll make an exception for you.
Your profile pic gets you a get out of jail card with me.
Worth watching last night’s Newsnight for a report on what such a trade deal might mean for NICE and the cost of drugs for the NHS.
I did, and thought a mention might have made it into the header. While the figures bandied about were misleading - the chances of our paying US prices for pharmaceuticals are pretty slim - there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be an item on the US agenda.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that. (And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
I had largely written the header by the time Newsnight was on. By then I was trying to edit it down to a manageable length.
One of the most persistent and damaging delusions in British politics is that the US will do us favours. They won’t. And certainly not on trade. If the US is keen for an FTA it’s because they want to reverse the trade surplus Britain has (as you point out), see us as weakened by Brexit and desperate and know that too many British politicians are deluded by an imaginary “special” relationship. And the rest are as thick as mince - like IDS.
Do you not think Farage would have looked at what happened in Australia, and reacted accordingly? He is not thick.
*If* the commission had come up with something that the majority of leavers liked and voted for, and *if* that was agreeable to the EU (two conditionals that are probably contradictory), then Farage et al would have cried that it wasn't 'Brexit' and was not 'leaving': and that in their view (and that of a party that had a large following) the referendum meant something different: enough to throw the meaning of any 'leave' result into doubt.
If you need any evidence, just look at how they reacted to May's deal, which many leavers say *is* Brexit and *is* leaving.
As a second, remember the fury that leavers treated Cameron's and the government's utterances pre-referendum. It's odd to believe that they'd have sat on their hands when it came to a commission they didn't believe in.
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Not quite. I’ll be sharing my winnings with fellow PB Tories who voted for Hunt and who regularly denounce Mark Reckless and pizzas laden with pineapple.
damn.... falls at the last fence....
I’ll make an exception for you.
Your profile pic gets you a get out of jail card with me.
Worth watching last night’s Newsnight for a report on what such a trade deal might mean for NICE and the cost of drugs for the NHS.
I did, and thought a mention might have made it into the header. While the figures bandied about were misleading - the chances of our paying US prices for pharmaceuticals are pretty slim - there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be an item on the US agenda.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that. (And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
I had largely written the header by the time Newsnight was on. By then I was trying to edit it down to a manageable length...
He is unrecognisable in that photo from a few months ago. I presume he must have been suffering from some terrible illness.
I was sad to hear of his death. The bookmaker-as-showman has fallen out of favour as an artform as betting has become normalised post-1960, but he was a good (the best?) exponent of the art. Turning your personality into a character can cause problems - fame is a mask that eats the face - but he seemed comfortable with it and made him happy. His devotion to his wife spoke well of him.
And after the dozy twit is booted from office, do you imagine his earnings potential will have been impaired ?
Given big business' proclivity to pay any halfway famous person obscene amounts of money for talking after a dinner I'd say no.
I'm not sure mrs may will be inundated with big money requests....
I think even May would be paid a fair bit on the speech circuit, she probably won't bother though. It doesn't matter if you're good, bad or useless - once you've become PM people will pay.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that. (And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
Actually the question of a US trade surplus is puzzling as each country thinks it enjoys a surplus.
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
The whole British politician system (and arguably our economic one also) is geared to the short term. No-one is worrying about the future. Since the Brexit fiasco was foist upon us, the focus has been even more to the short term.
Only the Chinese, it seems, are thinking twenty years ahead.
Some Brits do think about the medium and longer term. I'd credit Gove with that, and McDonnell, not two names one normally has in the same sentence.
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
A very poor one. He will be divisive, unable to strategically plan ahead, at the mercy of events, have difficulty keeping on top of his boxes, making decisions in the national interest that maybe unpopular not related to Brexit. On top of all this he has a poor character and is difficult to take seriously. He is dire, he does not look, sound or behave like a PM either!
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
A Leaver blaming somebody else for their own actions? I'm shocked, I tell you: shocked.
Worth watching last night’s Newsnight for a report on what such a trade deal might mean for NICE and the cost of drugs for the NHS.
I did, and thought a mention might have made it into the header. While the figures bandied about were misleading - the chances of our paying US prices for pharmaceuticals are pretty slim - there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be an item on the US agenda.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that. (And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
I had largely written the header by the time Newsnight was on. By then I was trying to edit it down to a manageable length...
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
Boris benefits from the same forces as Trump and Salvini, he winds up the metropolitan elite liberal left
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
A very poor one. He will be divisive, unable to strategically plan ahead, at the mercy of events, have difficulty keeping on top of his boxes, making decisions in the national interest that maybe unpopular not related to Brexit. On top of all this he has a poor character and is difficult to take seriously. He is dire, he does not look, sound or behave like a PM either!
If I had a vote I would support Jeremy Hunt.
He looks and sounds like Churchill, Hunt looks and sounds like Eden
If he’d gone into the City - the usual place where entitled twillocks like him often end up - I am 100% certain that he would have ended up under investigation and being interviewed by the likes of me.
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
A very poor one. He will be divisive, unable to strategically plan ahead, at the mercy of events, have difficulty keeping on top of his boxes, making decisions in the national interest that maybe unpopular not related to Brexit. On top of all this he has a poor character and is difficult to take seriously. He is dire, he does not look, sound or behave like a PM either!
If I had a vote I would support Jeremy Hunt.
He looks and sounds like Churchill, Hunt looks and sounds like Eden
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
Boris benefits from the same forces as Trump and Salvini, he winds up the metropolitan elite liberal left
Correction: Boris is trying to benefit from the same forces, but he cuts an increasingly pathetic figure and clearly has no answers to the problems facing the country.
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
If he delivers Brexit with a Canada style FTA for GB a brilliant one, if he fails to deliver Brexit a poor one.
However Hunt will only be average at best so worth the risk
A "Canada style FTA" is more than a slogan. Implementing it would be economically disruptive, take a long time, and promote the break up of the UK.
Wrong on both counts, a FTA for GB would deliver Brexit and regained sovereignty and border control and enable us to do our own FTAs with the rest of the world as Leavers wanted, is preferred by Scots to No Deal with Yougov and if a technical solution is found to the Irish border it avoids a hard border in Ireland boosting reunification support too
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
Boris benefits from the same forces as Trump and Salvini, he winds up the metropolitan elite liberal left
Correction: Boris is trying to benefit from the same forces, but he cuts an increasingly pathetic figure and clearly has no answers to the problems facing the country.
No, Boris has answers just diehard Remainers don't like them
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
If he delivers Brexit with a Canada style FTA for GB a brilliant one, if he fails to deliver Brexit a poor one.
However Hunt will only be average at best so worth the risk
A "Canada style FTA" is more than a slogan. Implementing it would be economically disruptive, take a long time, and promote the break up of the UK.
Wrong on both counts, a FTA for GB would deliver Brexit and regained sovereignty and border control as Leavers wanted, is preferred by Scots to No Deal with Yougov and if a technical solution is found to the Irish border it avoids a hard border in Ireland boosting reunification support too
is especially good - that's a really first-class article going well beyond the Cameron aspect.
On topic, the odd thing is that virtually nobody in politics is giving the consequences of Brexit serious thought. Johnson and Hunt are preoccupied with wooing the Tory fringes. Corbyn is preoccupied with fine-tuning the precise degree of Remainerism. The LibDems are agin it, but have no particular view on what to do if it happens. The Brexit Party are for it, but have literally no views on anything else. Civil servants who I talk to are all busy dealing with the immediate effects.
In short, nobody feels they have time to think about the longer term, as the short term is so complicated. Scary.
The whole British politician system (and arguably our economic one also) is geared to the short term. No-one is worrying about the future. Since the Brexit fiasco was foist upon us, the focus has been even more to the short term.
Only the Chinese, it seems, are thinking twenty years ahead.
The Chinese are communist, we are capatilist! Planning 20 years ahead is something the UK has done. Look at the UK on climate change, HS2, state pension age adjustment, for instance. You could look at long term defence capabilities or education reform. Economically we are not currently centrally planned, a capatilist economy by its very nature adjusts to change whereas a centrally planed one might waste resources on longterm plans superceeded by new technology or changes to demand that makes a plan obselete.
Forward thinking on social care for instance was not popular! I think we do plan ahead as a country but their is not always the democratic support to tackle these things. The climate emergency issued by the UK Government was ahead of the curve!
is especially good - that's a really first-class article going well beyond the Cameron aspect.
On topic, the odd thing is that virtually nobody in politics is giving the consequences of Brexit serious thought. Johnson and Hunt are preoccupied with wooing the Tory fringes. Corbyn is preoccupied with fine-tuning the precise degree of Remainerism. The LibDems are agin it, but have no particular view on what to do if it happens. The Brexit Party are for it, but have literally no views on anything else. Civil servants who I talk to are all busy dealing with the immediate effects.
In short, nobody feels they have time to think about the longer term, as the short term is so complicated. Scary.
The whole British politician system (and arguably our economic one also) is geared to the short term. No-one is worrying about the future. Since the Brexit fiasco was foist upon us, the focus has been even more to the short term.
Only the Chinese, it seems, are thinking twenty years ahead.
The Chinese are communist, we are capatilist! Planning 20 years ahead is something the UK has done. Look at the UK on climate change, HS2, state pension age adjustment, for instance. You could look at long term defence capabilities or education reform. Economically we are not currently centrally planned, a capatilist economy by its very nature adjusts to change whereas a centrally planed one might waste resources on longterm plans superceeded by new technology or changes to demand that makes a plan obselete.
Forward thinking on social care for instance was not popular! I think we do plan ahead as a country but their is not always the democratic support to tackle these things. The climate emergency issued by the UK Government was ahead of the curve!
The Chinese currently are locking up Muslims and dissenters and coping with mass demonstrations in Hong Kong about proposals for extradition to mainland China
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
Boris benefits from the same forces as Trump and Salvini, he winds up the metropolitan elite liberal left
Correction: Boris is trying to benefit from the same forces, but he cuts an increasingly pathetic figure and clearly has no answers to the problems facing the country.
No, Boris has answers just diehard Remainers don't like them
It's quite noticable how many people are supporting Boris Johnson just because they think he offends people they don't like. I even saw someone posting their ballot paper on Twitter with a tick next to Boris's name alongside the comment: "You made this happen, Remainers!"
Boris benefits from the same forces as Trump and Salvini, he winds up the metropolitan elite liberal left
Correction: Boris is trying to benefit from the same forces, but he cuts an increasingly pathetic figure and clearly has no answers to the problems facing the country.
No, Boris has answers just diehard Remainers don't like them
As you are an expert on both diehards and percentages, please could you confirm the percentage of diehard Remainers in the UK?
Comments
Wednesday’s news that William Hill will close about 700 betting shops over the next few months, around a third of its retail estate, puts the jobs of 4,500 company staff at risk (and up to 12,000 in the industry) and will also mean a cut of around £21m in media rights payments to Britain’s racecourses, on top of an unexpected £17m drop in the money collected by the Levy Board in 2018-19, which was revealed in May.
Only the staff who are going to lose their jobs can be seen as unfortunate or blameless, however, as the 15-year story of the disastrous decision to allow high-speed, high-stakes roulette into Britain’s betting shops draws towards what was always likely to be a painful conclusion.
William Hill, along with the other major chains, was allowed to suck billions of pounds from what were already deprived areas the length and breadth of Britain, when Labour’s 2005 Gambling Act legitimised the gaming machines which they had been quietly introducing to their shops for some time....
....Racing, meanwhile, is also facing up to the imminent loss of annual media rights payments of £30,000 per shop, not only from the 700 shops that William Hill expects to close but also from hundreds more of their competitor’s shops that are likely to go the same way. The BHA’s estimate is that the annual loss will be around £50-£60m once the FOBT saga finally reaches a conclusion. Wednesday’s announcement suggests that it may prove to be a conservative one.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/05/talking-horses-everyone-a-loser-with-william-hill-closures-news
After puffing No Deal, they will then try to blame the EU for it.
However it's a nice day, I've a couple of books to read, cricket to watch and, later, wine to buy.
But will HoC have been prorogued by then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-48881327
Ken Clarke was pencilled in initially but I decided being ABB was more important
TSE is sharing his Hunt winnings with fellow party members too I believe.
Claptrap from IDS who, like many, seems to have no idea what a free trade agreement is, what free trade is, or even to have read any of President Trump's tweets.
The "stitch up" argument as you call it was cast at John Howard, but it did him no harm Australia is still a monarchy and he went on to win the next general election.
Farage and UKIP would have been invited to contribute to the royal commission. Had he refused to cooperate would have made splintered the case for Leave and made Farage's case much weaker.
It is possible that a model proposed by Royal Commission would have won in a referendum, in which case it would have been much clearer what "the people" actually "willed" and prevented the mess we are in now.
Hugh Lansdell, 70, was Senior Partner at Norwich-based firm Hansells. When fraudsters contacted him to say he had won £825,000 in a lottery he was mug enough to take the bait and respond. Presumably not quite believing their luck that such a senior lawyer could be so naïve, the crooks replied to say that the figure had bumped up to £1.825m and Lansdell needed only to cough up an administration fee for the cash to be his*.
Over a two year period Lansdell made 59 payments totalling £1.49m in a bid to release the funds. These were charged to 29 of Hansells’ clients. The SDT heard that a psychologist had found that Lansdell had developed an “overvalued belief in both the power of prayer and the guidance of God, which then informed his interpretation of unfolding events and his decision making”. Which possibly explains how he might have fallen for the scam in the first place.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/partner-struck-after-being-duped-lottery-scam
(Yes, I know: dangling participle)
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/08/how-will-history-treat-david-cameron
is especially good - that's a really first-class article going well beyond the Cameron aspect.
On topic, the odd thing is that virtually nobody in politics is giving the consequences of Brexit serious thought. Johnson and Hunt are preoccupied with wooing the Tory fringes. Corbyn is preoccupied with fine-tuning the precise degree of Remainerism. The LibDems are agin it, but have no particular view on what to do if it happens. The Brexit Party are for it, but have literally no views on anything else. Civil servants who I talk to are all busy dealing with the immediate effects.
In short, nobody feels they have time to think about the longer term, as the short term is so complicated. Scary.
Brexit Deal or No Deal by October 31st with Boris or further extension and BINO or revoke with Corbyn, the LDs and SNP
There Was No Alternative!
Even Boris couldn't pull it off as he would need an extension and any extension gives Farage the chance to destroy him...
True patriots all.
https://twitter.com/ConHome/status/1147025678669426688?s=20
time was people were banished to conhome as punishment for misdemeanours on here...
https://twitter.com/michaelsavage/status/1147082549996544000
Today's aimless musings from Stodge Towers:
1) John McCririck - some sadness. A complicated individual (aren't we all) - horse racing tv's Tony Hancock. Moments of genius yes and as an investigative journalist at the Sporting Life one of a group of extraordinary talented and knowledgeable people on a paper I thought was the finest of its day. Yet a difficult person to know and get to know I suspect. I saw him a few times on the racecourse - I could empathise, I find people difficult too.
2) Has anyone told Boris this isn't a GE? Trips to garden centres and sausage factories for a contest with 160,000 voters, not 40 million. Yet it is part of the GE preparation introducing the country to the new PM. It's remarkably Thatcher-like, all pretty pictures and nil political content. The positivity oozes from every pore and for that alone he'll do well.
3) We are left with those with those who believe leaving the EU without a WA will be a minor inconvenience and those who are already preparing to enrich themselves (further) by playing the markets on the old adage everyone's bad news is always someone's good news and then there are those who believe leaving without the WA will cause significant economic dislocation and damage. Some will be right, some will be wrong and some will get rich whatever happens.
Only the Chinese, it seems, are thinking twenty years ahead.
While the figures bandied about were misleading - the chances of our paying US prices for pharmaceuticals are pretty slim - there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be an item on the US agenda.
We have a significant trade surplus with the US. The purpose of any deal they agreed with us would be to reverse that.
(And it is notable that those UK businesses who already trade with the US have no urgent desire for any deal.)
Or to put it in terms Brexiteers understand, they hold all the cards.
Parliament says "Do this"
Boris says "No"
Parliament says "We'll No Confidence you"
Boris says "Okay. Try it. I think you're bluffing"
Conservatives against No Deal now have to make the fateful call to sacrifice their own careers or not. Massive bottle check time
IF they go through with it, they have to win. Assume they do, who becomes PM? Will they elevate Corbyn, Leader of the Opposition? (I have doubts)
Will they nominate another Tory? If so, will Labour, SNP, LDs, etc, support to a sufficient extent? (Not at all trivial)
Will they support a Labour alternative? If so, will Corbynites in Labour accept that? (Again, not exactly a no-brainer)
Will they elevate a Lib Dem or SNP or other candidate to Number Ten? (Pause for hollow laughter)
If they haven't solved that ahead of time, it'll be very fraught to try to do it during that time.
If they get through two weeks without squaring that circle, the five-week-plus clock starts for an election, during which period Boris remains PM.
Note that two weeks plus five weeks (plus leftover days to the next Thursday) cannot fit in October before October 31st. Maybe Parliament could pass legislation to accelerate the campaign, but to do so in almost zero time to shorten the campaign to a week or so at most would seem implausible to the extreme.
I think the Tories under Boris (in particular) should try and go mass membership, with say a £5 or £10 per year charge only rather than £25 at present.
Then, when the commission unveiled its proposals, they had something firm to argue against: a real betrayal. And we'd be just where we are now.
Do you not think Farage would have seen what happened in Australia, and realised that it was both a massive trap if he took part, and a massive opportunity if he was against it?
As for your last couple of paragraphs: having talked to many people from many different backgrounds who voted leave, I utterly disagree. Too many were promised different things.
Your profile pic gets you a get out of jail card with me.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9290023/boris-johnson-pay-cut-next-prime-minister/
The sacrifice is all ours.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48874147
The bbc write up of the boris intelligence access story reflects far worse on may than boris.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/25/incredible-rise-and-fall-and-rise-boris-johnson
(Though I otherwise qualify.)
One of the most persistent and damaging delusions in British politics is that the US will do us favours. They won’t. And certainly not on trade. If the US is keen for an FTA it’s because they want to reverse the trade surplus Britain has (as you point out), see us as weakened by Brexit and desperate and know that too many British politicians are deluded by an imaginary “special” relationship. And the rest are as thick as mince - like IDS.
*If* the commission had come up with something that the majority of leavers liked and voted for, and *if* that was agreeable to the EU (two conditionals that are probably contradictory), then Farage et al would have cried that it wasn't 'Brexit' and was not 'leaving': and that in their view (and that of a party that had a large following) the referendum meant something different: enough to throw the meaning of any 'leave' result into doubt.
If you need any evidence, just look at how they reacted to May's deal, which many leavers say *is* Brexit and *is* leaving.
As a second, remember the fury that leavers treated Cameron's and the government's utterances pre-referendum. It's odd to believe that they'd have sat on their hands when it came to a commission they didn't believe in.
Do you think Boris will make a poor PM, an average one, a good one, or a brilliant PM?
If so, why?
It does not reflect well on Mrs May and it sounds as if Boris was not denied intelligence so what is the point of it?
Only the Telegraph and Express and just about the Sun are pro Boris over Hunt (and the Evening Standard for different reasons)
If I had a vote I would support Jeremy Hunt.
However Hunt will only be average at best so worth the risk
Forward thinking on social care for instance was not popular! I think we do plan ahead as a country but their is not always the democratic support to tackle these things. The climate emergency issued by the UK Government was ahead of the curve!