politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The firsrt Tory to be selected in a full all-postal primary, S

Chris said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

The LDs have been telling us incessantly that the most important thing in the world is to block Brexit, and particularly a No Deal Brexit.

If a majority of MPs have the will, this is a straightforward way of blocking No Deal - or at least averting it for the time being - and probably coupling it with a general election will also give them the best chance of the EU agreeing an extension.

If the Lib Dems sabotage it and we leave with No Deal, then I think people will be entirely justified in never believing a word they say again.

As YBarddCwsc notes the LDs, much like most sides in this, want X, but only if done their way. Implicitly, they accept other suboptimal outcomes if it is not done the perfect way they want. The Brexiteers, the Grievers, others, they are all at that.

It will be fascinating to see if, at last, one side or the other actually backs up their words that X is crucial and must be done, by accepting doing things imperfectly if it achieves X.

Gabs2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

And a moral problem in putting a man who has commemorated Jew-killers in charge of almost a million British Jews.

Don't worry, there won't be a million British Jews if Corbyn becomes PM! They will have all left.

YBarddCwsc said:

edmundintokyo said:

Byronic said:

The trouble is it took you six paragraphs to explain Jezza's position and I'm still not quite convinced, or even clear about it. So even if you are right, this is a very hard sell. I can see why the LDs are saying PAH!
Corbyn needs to muscle up and say I will lead a six month government into a new vote! End!
But he won't. Because he doesn't want to.

It didn't take 6 paragraphs to explain Corbyn's position, it took six paragraphs to look at all the different ways he could ratfuck the other parties and see why all of them were blocked. 6 paragraphs is on the short side as ratfuckery-proofing goes, because the arts of political ratfuckery are numerous and elaborate.
That said, it's obviously going to be a hard sell for LDs, and even harder for VONC-curious Tories. A different caretaker might be better, but even if the Labour front bench will go for that, it's not clear whether they could take all their leave-supporting MPs with them.

The Lib Dems are interested in stopping Brexit –-- on condition that it is they who did so. The absolutely last thing the LibDems want is for Labour to stop Brexit.

I wouldn`t mind in the least, M Cwsc - if it were just a matter of ending the Conservatives Brexit nonsense. But I would be most unhappy about the risk of ushering in a Socialist dictatorship.

PClipp said:

Gabs2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

And a moral problem in putting a man who has commemorated Jew-killers in charge of almost a million British Jews.

Are you sure? I thought we were down to our last two hundred thousand.

300 thousand when I looked it up. I must have been misled.

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

rcs1000 said:

kyf_100 said:

Gallowgate said:

kyf_100 said:

Gallowgate said:

kyf_100 said:

Scott_P said:

kyf_100 said:

Then she should lead by example.

She has said she will VoNC at the earliest opportunity

Switching political parties should be a condition that can trigger a recall petition.

How would that work? The Brexit Party does not have members, for example.

If a person is elected as a Conservative and turns out to be a lib dem, you should be able to send them back. Just as if you order the fish and it turns out to be a hamburger.

Again, how would that work?

Are you thick?

I'm suggesting that if a person elected as, for example, Conservative on their ballot paper crosses the floor and takes, for example, the lib dem whip, the recall of mps act 2015 should be amended such as to make this one of the allowable circumstances that would trigger the recall process.

Got it?

If an MP has the whip withdrawn, does that count?

Is resigning the whip enough, or would one have to join another party?

(Asking for a friend.)

My thought is that if at an election I stick my cross next to "Sarah Wollaston, Conservative then that is what I am voting for. If S. W. ceases to be a Conservative then I am no longer represented by what was on the ballot paper when I voted. Therefore allowong a recall petition at this point seems valid. I don't think this is an unreasonable suggestion.

I like it, but I have once concern:

Simply, this dramatically increases the power of whips in our system.

You'd either have to remove party names and symbols from ballot papers - a courageous choice, as sir humphrey might say

That was the UK rule until quite late though. Unless I am very much mis-recalling, it wasn't until the 60s or 70s that the candidates' descriptions on the ballot paper could include their party affiliation.

As to recalls, I think the California method works for me: once a large enough percentage of the electorate has petitioned for it, there's a simple yes/no vote on whether to recall. If it passes, the recalled office-holder can't run in the election to fill the vacancy.

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying to make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

NickPalmer said:

NickPalmer said:

<
Swinson's response is pure politics, since she must be aware that organising a second referendum before October 31 is literally impossible. The LibDems seem more interested in scoring points than actually preventing No Deal.

Actually, on reflection, it WOULD be possible, if Corbyn had a government lasting several months instead of the caretaker option that he's proposing - but I bet that if he proposed that, Swinson would reject it as well, since it would certainly mean the need to have a budget and other urgent measures in the meantime.

She will be losing tactical Labour votes quickly at this rate.

I don't think so, just providing a bit of leadership for Jezza to follow, and he has.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1161767689762889728?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1161767691646115840?s=20

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

Gabs2 said:

kyf_100 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lovely man.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1161747086616010752?s=20

I wish I had the luxury of taking a 16 day sailing holiday every time my job required me to be in new York...

So if environmental activists travel by plane, they are rank hypocrites, but if they travel in a low carbon manner, they are out of touch toffs?

What's wrong with Skype?

Well indeed. I have suggested on PB that round the world first class travel and five star accommodation for oh so important meetings with clients might not be essential...
Apparently I "don't understand how business works."

I have worked with clients on every inhabited continent via Skype / GoToMeeting / WebEx / Google Hangouts / WhatsApp / several others. Different clients using different systems... but that's obviously far less of a pain than travelling thousands of miles. And I've had days when I've worked with someone in Asia, someone in Africa and someone in America all in the same day. Not gonna do that if you have to get between them by private yacht...

To be fair there are some things I understand are best done in person, but I do think a lot of business travel (and indeed commuting) has limited value.

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying to make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It is a bonkers business model. They take all the risk on paying for long term rents in extremely expensive locations and their customers get all the up side with very little downside.

They're one of the firms on my "I hope they don't reach IPO" / "I wish they hadn't" list because I know they're going to end up in some of my tracker funds, potentially as quite a sizeable slice. Wish there was such a thing as a "tracker fund with the barmy ones taken out".

They are like an incredibly levered bank who lends long (i.e. has long term rental contracts) and borrows short (i.e. its customers can just leave).

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

YellowSubmarine said:

Meanwhile Boris knew what he was doing with ' collaborator '. He's engineering the collapse of his own Government on his own terms as he knows it's going to collapse anyway. That's a strategy of sorts but it's a very very odd one. He seems to be replicating the Theresa May playbook but at Warp Speed with more charisma and higher negatives.

You can argue that is worth gambling on given the dire situation but it's entirely unoriginal.

No he's not.

He's reckoning that - with the Kate Hoey's of this world - there isn't a majority for a VoNC. And then he's reckoning that No Deal won't be so bad.

And then in 2022, we'll have largely forgotten and/or those that are cross are split between Labour and the LibDems

Gabs2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

And a moral problem in putting a man who has commemorated Jew-killers in charge of almost a million British Jews.

And the prize for worst new PBer 2019 goes to ........

Gabs2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

And a moral problem in putting a man who has commemorated Jew-killers in charge of almost a million British Jews.

You are conflating Jews with Israelis where Corbyn would not. You ought to be concerned that in dealing with the IRA, he has commemorated Brit-killers, though he would claim he was working for peace and to end the IRA's killing of Britons (and anyone else, for that matter). Boris's race-baiting seems not to bother you.

TheJezziah said:

Whilst Corbyn has some MPs against him I can't think of another person (outside Boris) who won't be opposed by more, Corbyn could get the support of Labour MPs and SNP MPs as well as Caroline Lucas. That is the vast majority of the non Tory and DUP MPs.

I think there are a lot of unknowns at this point. I mean, we have zero committed Tories, so on current accounting it doesn't work.

One of the big unknowns is how many Lab MPs would vote for Corbyn (because They Have One Job) but not for $CARETAKER. If that number is zero then you definitely have a better chance with Ken Clarke or Sylvia Hermon or whoever. OTOH if it's 10 then you need to balance it against the equal-and-opposite Tories, which is also a big unknown.

The encouraging thing about this is that most of the opposition to everybody's favoured caretaker is couched in terms of "[unfavoured alternative caretaker] wouldn't get the votes". That doesn't really stand up as an objection once you're having an actual vote.

More on deep fakes:

https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1161704103136964613?s=20

rcs1000 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Meanwhile Boris knew what he was doing with ' collaborator '. He's engineering the collapse of his own Government on his own terms as he knows it's going to collapse anyway. That's a strategy of sorts but it's a very very odd one. He seems to be replicating the Theresa May playbook but at Warp Speed with more charisma and higher negatives.

You can argue that is worth gambling on given the dire situation but it's entirely unoriginal.

No he's not.

He's reckoning that - with the Kate Hoey's of this world - there isn't a majority for a VoNC. And then he's reckoning that No Deal won't be so bad.

And then in 2022, we'll have largely forgotten and/or those that are cross are split between Labour and the LibDems

If no deal is the disaster many expect then Boris needs a snap election before the solids hit the fan or to wait for 2022 and hope, as you suggest, the worst is over (and if not, he'll have had three years at the top). To the extent this is under Boris's control, the snap election might be better because it removes the risk of VoNC at any time between now and 2022, which would be his worst time for an election, except he might lose an election this autumn which is obviously suboptimal.

One imagines Boris, Dominic Cummings and Lynton Crosby will be preparing for either scenario.

edmundintokyo said:

Chris said:

Really, if the plan is just to ask for an extension and then immediately have an election, does it really matter much who the prime minister is?

Yup, exactly. In practical terms it doesn't matter. There's just an emotional problem (lifelong Tories voting for Corbyn PM) and a political problem (LDs seen to back Corbyn lose ex-Tories).

It seems to me that Corbyn is simply laying a trap for the Lib Dems.

CarlottaVance said:

More on deep fakes:

I guarantee we'll see some seriously well-done attempt at this at the next US election. The tech is there now, it's inevitable.

Of course, it'll be quickly debunked, but it's easy to see this swinging a lot of votes.

TheJezziah said:

Presumably the MPs who would support no deal over remain, like Sarah Champion, Caroline Flint and Kate Hoey wouldn't support an alternative just to stop no deal, The other 2 and IMO Kate Hoey would all vote for Corbyn though. There are MPs who supported Brexit originally like Dennis Skinner who aren't certain to vote for an alternative.

If you had Labour members as well as Corbyn and the team around him actively telling people to back X you could still probably come up with a fair few who wouldn't back it. Probably an overlap with the Labour MPs who didn't vote for a 2nd ref despite Corbyn and Labour members wanting/telling/whipping them too.

That all sounds plausible, so the question is whether it's easier to find:

a) 3 Tories prepared to vote for Jeremy Corbyn
b) 11 Tories prepared to vote for Ken Clarke or Sylvia Hermon

I don't know the answer to this question, and I think the people who are acting like they do on both sides are playing political games rather than doing honest analysis. Which is fine, part of the process is a lot of signalling and counter-signalling and maneuvring, but nobody cares what people below the line on politicalbetting dot com signal so let's do actual analysis.

Andrew said:

CarlottaVance said:

More on deep fakes:

I guarantee we'll see some seriously well-done attempt at this at the next US election. The tech is there now, it's inevitable.

Of course, it'll be quickly debunked, but it's easy to see this swinging a lot of votes.

As we've seen with Corbyn & Trump the "true believers" will believe no wickedness by their own man but virtually anything of his opponents....

This is proper trolling:

Trump Tower on ‘Obama Avenue’? 135,000 people sign name-change petition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/14/people-sign-petition-rename-fifth-ave-front-trump-tower-obama-avenue/

CarlottaVance said:

rcs1000 said:

This is proper trolling:

Trump Tower on ‘Obama Avenue’? 135,000 people sign name-change petition.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/14/people-sign-petition-rename-fifth-ave-front-trump-tower-obama-avenue/

Non $$$wall:

"As much as I love the idea of celebrating President Obama, I am not positive this is the best way," Speaker Corey Johnson told CBS News on Wednesday. The Obamas epitomize class, dedication to public service and respect for the Oval Office. I'm pretty confident we can find a better way to honor the greatest president of my lifetime than by trolling the worst president of my lifetime."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tower-nyc-address-obama-avenue-petition-more-than-200000-signatures-rename-5th-avenue-president-barack-obama/

Petition - closing on a quarter of a million:

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/rename-fifth-avenue-in/?source=search

Useful summary of the state of play:

https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/parliament-a-handy-guide-to-the-state-of-play/

CarlottaVance said:

Useful summary of the state of play:

https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/parliament-a-handy-guide-to-the-state-of-play/

I think there are sufficient votes for a VoNC but not enough to install Corbyn as a caretaker PM. There is a group numbering about 30 who are Corbyn loyalists and , at best, lukewarm towards Revoke/2nd Referendum. Like Rebecca Long Name. They would not mind a "Tory Brexit". This group includes Corbyn, I believe.
In the 14 day period can an amendment be passed to amend the 31st October date in the relevant legislation ? There would be a majority for that if there is a majority for a VoNC.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CatMan said:

I know everyone here are really big fans of Greta Thunberg so you can all watch her progress here: https://t.co/6nhsBbn73Q?amp=1

The irony is they have an inboard engine for emergencies

Seems sensible to me.

Yes but hardly fits the narrative

Well, yes and no. I am against single use plastic and my wife and I have cut it out as much as we can... but I am still happy to use it for essential medical purposes.

I don't think I am being too hypocritical.

Not hypocritical at all.

All apsects of medicine are a "nightmare" in terms of CO2, plastic and other waste and general overconsumption. But rightly no one is protesting about it. In some cases it is clear that "overpackaging" and "energy waste" is avoiding problems further down the line (so avoiding even more overconsumption) such as single use hypodermic needles. But basically the safety first approach is someting we want and expect.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1161867153626165248?s=20

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying to make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It is a bonkers business model. They take all the risk on paying for long term rents in extremely expensive locations and their customers get all the up side with very little downside.

They're one of the firms on my "I hope they don't reach IPO" / "I wish they hadn't" list because I know they're going to end up in some of my tracker funds, potentially as quite a sizeable slice. Wish there was such a thing as a "tracker fund with the barmy ones taken out".

They are like an incredibly levered bank who lends long (i.e. has long term rental contracts) and borrows short (i.e. its customers can just leave).

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

There was me thinking that Uber had a crap business model, but at least they have a bunch of IP to show for the billions invested. What assets does WeWork have, given that almost all of their offices are leased long term and their customers are all on short contracts?

CarlottaVance said:

More on deep fakes:

ttps://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1161704103136964613?s=20

The US election next year is going to be completely full of this stuff, both professional and amateur (and Russian, trolling both sides).

I wouldn’t want to be holding shares in Facebook or Twitter when the sh!t hits the fan, as both sides are going to be completely outraged by it and whoever wins will be keen to legislate to shut it down.

The Lib Dems could gain quite a few Conservative defectors if they pursued them. They need to think about how that might change their own party and whether they are ready for that.

I have a question.
Assume Mr Johnson has just lost a VoNC, and there is 14 days to find an alternative PM. How exactly does a group of 322 MPs make it clear to the Queen that they will support X as PM? In a scenario where today X cannot get enough support, then tomorrow Y tries but fails and then Z tries and fails and so eventualy X gets enough support after all, how can this be confirmed?

Does the HoC hold a vote every day? If so what type of motion - "Ammendment to safety of childrens toys act: this house has the confidence in X as prime minister"?
If the government controls the HoC timetable, will it be possible to have such votes in the house? Will X have to collect 322 signatures and submit them to the Palace? or submit them to No 10?

...

eristdoof said:

I have a question.
Assume Mr Johnson has just lost a VoNC, and there is 14 days to find an alternative PM. How exactly does a group of 322 MPs make it clear to the Queen that they will support X as PM? In a scenario where today X cannot get enough support, then tomorrow Y tries but fails and then Z tries and fails and so eventualy X gets enough support after all, how can this be confirmed?

Does the HoC hold a vote every day? If so what type of motion - "Ammendment to safety of childrens toys act: this house has the confidence in X as prime minister"?
If the government controls the HoC timetable, will it be possible to have such votes in the house? Will X have to collect 322 signatures and submit them to the Palace? or submit them to No 10?

...

The obvious flaw in the FTPA is does the Government (which Parliament has no confidence in) still control the Parliamentary Agenda. That bit is not made clear because I don't think it was ever meant to be used.

On Greta Thunberg, that yacht journey won’t be pleasant. There’s no room. No proper nice food and (literally) just a pot to piss in.

She’ll also get unpleasantly sea sick at times, and very bored. Particularly since conversing with the crew won’t exactly be her forte. It’ll be a long two weeks.

I have a modicum of respect for her doing it as a result, which isn’t just virtue-signalling as it’s going to cost her something unlike the rather loathsome Emma Thompson, but is hardly a practical solution to intercontinental travel.

That needs to focus on renewable/low carbon energy for ships and planes and, if I were going to wave the flag, I’d focus on those rather than show I’m willing to wear the hairiest shirt in town.

I couldn’t be less surprised about Wollaston. She’s an attention seeker (and rather good at it too) but has been heading this way for months. If not years.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before though: there is no tent into which she won’t piss.

So the Lib Dems should be careful.

eek said:

eristdoof said:

I have a question.
Assume Mr Johnson has just lost a VoNC, and there is 14 days to find an alternative PM. How exactly does a group of 322 MPs make it clear to the Queen that they will support X as PM? In a scenario where today X cannot get enough support, then tomorrow Y tries but fails and then Z tries and fails and so eventualy X gets enough support after all, how can this be confirmed?

Does the HoC hold a vote every day? If so what type of motion - "Ammendment to safety of childrens toys act: this house has the confidence in X as prime minister"?
If the government controls the HoC timetable, will it be possible to have such votes in the house? Will X have to collect 322 signatures and submit them to the Palace? or submit them to No 10?

...

The obvious flaw in the FTPA is does the Government (which Parliament has no confidence in) still control the Parliamentary Agenda. That bit is not made clear because I don't think it was ever meant to be used.

My assumption is that the agenda is entirely VOC debates and votes, until one passes. Which is probably what the drafters imagined, if they considered it. But I agree that since the previous government remains in office it could bring forward other business and/or the Speaker might well be able to take some other proposal as an emergency

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs2 said:

kyf_100 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lovely man.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1161747086616010752?s=20

I wish I had the luxury of taking a 16 day sailing holiday every time my job required me to be in new York...

So if environmental activists travel by plane, they are rank hypocrites, but if they travel in a low carbon manner, they are out of touch toffs?

I wonder how they would react if she had travelled in a wooden yacht?

Absolutely no reason for her to travel to give a talk. That’s what video links are for. I’ve been using video links for years to give talks to places as far away Australia, Singapore, Japan and HK, let alone NY.

And the amount of carbon involved in the manufacture of that yacht is probably not insignificant either.

It’s a silly publicity stunt. The best thing she could have done was not turn up but do the talk remotely. But it wouldn’t have made such a story would it, not when lots of people have been doing this for the last decade or more without getting public praise.

The publicity stunt is precisely the reason.
Given we’d probably not have been talking about her otherwise, it appears to be quite effective.

In any case, if a remote video link was as effective as being there in person then nobody would ever travel to meetings.

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

CarlottaVance said:

This is not about stopping Brexit.

This is about apportioning blame when it happens.

https://twitter.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1161755118678827009?s=20

Point of order! The surest way of avoiding "no deal Brexit" is for Jeremy Corbyn to whip his MPs to support the Withdrawal Agreement.

eristdoof said:

I have a question.
Assume Mr Johnson has just lost a VoNC, and there is 14 days to find an alternative PM. How exactly does a group of 322 MPs make it clear to the Queen that they will support X as PM? In a scenario where today X cannot get enough support, then tomorrow Y tries but fails and then Z tries and fails and so eventualy X gets enough support after all, how can this be confirmed?

Does the HoC hold a vote every day? If so what type of motion - "Ammendment to safety of childrens toys act: this house has the confidence in X as prime minister"?
If the government controls the HoC timetable, will it be possible to have such votes in the house? Will X have to collect 322 signatures and submit them to the Palace? or submit them to No 10?

...

The closest to a precedent is 2010, where a formal statement by Cameron and Clegg (those representing a majority of MPs) indicated to Brown that they had a majority and he needed to resign as PM.

The FTPA controls the wording quite specifically on a motion of confidence, and with the government in charge of the timetable it’s going to be difficult to hold indicative votes in Parliament - although I’m sure the Speaker would consider a motion f one were suggested to him.

The sitting PM is not going to resign until it’s clear that a majority of MPs support a named someone else for PM. The real danger is that they win their VoC but can’t find an acceptable alternative, and have to vote in favour of Johnson again to avoid an election campaign straddling the Brexit date - which is a really stupid idea due to purdah, cobra and any emergency legislation needed in the immediate aftermath.

One thing I haven’t seen discussed yet, is calling for Parliament to be recalled to debate a vote of confidence - or more specifically, to buy more Parliamentary time before the Brexit date. A LotO determined to stop Brexit would have called a VoC on the last day of term in July, and would be calling every week for a recall to debate the same. Maybe MPs just like their long holidays more than they want to stop Brexit?

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Greta Thunberg, that yacht journey won’t be pleasant. There’s no room. No proper nice food and (literally) just a pot to piss in.

She’ll also get unpleasantly sea sick at times, and very bored. Particularly since conversing with the crew won’t exactly be her forte. It’ll be a long two weeks.

I have a modicum of respect for her doing it as a result, which isn’t just virtue-signalling as it’s going to cost her something unlike the rather loathsome Emma Thompson, but is hardly a practical solution to intercontinental travel.

That needs to focus on renewable/low carbon energy for ships and planes and, if I were going to wave the flag, I’d focus on those rather than show I’m willing to wear the hairiest shirt in town.

She’s getting attention for her cause and she’s making us think about the implications of it for an under-considered aspect of daily life. Good on her.

Most people don’t take long-haul flights in our daily lives though. Probably a good few of us take one every 2-3 years which isn’t unreasonable.

Those that do (big business and the global super rich) don’t think such restrictions should apply to them.

This particular zeitgeist was let out a very long time ago, the whole world economy depends on such movement and no-one is going to put global air travel back in its box, so the only credible solution is to decarbonise such transport with renewable fuels.

OldKingCole said:

logical_song said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Gabs2 said:

kyf_100 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lovely man.

https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/1161747086616010752?s=20

I wish I had the luxury of taking a 16 day sailing holiday every time my job required me to be in new York...

So if environmental activists travel by plane, they are rank hypocrites, but if they travel in a low carbon manner, they are out of touch toffs?

I wonder how they would react if she had travelled in a wooden yacht?

Absolutely no reason for her to travel to give a talk. That’s what video links are for. I’ve been using video links for years to give talks to places as far away Australia, Singapore, Japan and HK, let alone NY.

And the amount of carbon involved in the manufacture of that yacht is probably not insignificant either.

It’s a silly publicity stunt. The best thing she could have done was not turn up but do the talk remotely. But it wouldn’t have made such a story would it, not when lots of people have been doing this for the last decade or more without getting public praise.

The publicity stunt is precisely the reason.
Given we’d probably not have been talking about her otherwise, it appears to be quite effective.

In any case, if a remote video link was as effective as being there in person then nobody would ever travel to meetings.

My son, who travels an incredible amount on business selling to governmental and quasi governmental organisations can't see a time when he can do everything by Skype, FaceTime, or whatever. Sales conferences yes, but not face-to-face persuasion of the customer.

It’s been around the corner as a way to replace real meetings for over 30 years.

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

That’s very true, and why there’s a good reason to still have in-person meetings. Social events are also really important, although rarely mentioned.

Project I’m about to start, there’s people in Lisbon, Dubai, Manila and Sydney all working together. The plan is to meet up somewhere monthly for three days, and work remotely the rest of the time (with the occasional 7am or 7pm call). Software projects are generally easier to work this way, as the people involved can work unassisted for long periods and it’s easier to communicate in writing than by voice, most of the time.

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.


Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

That’s very true, and why there’s a good reason to still have in-person meetings. Social events are also really important, although rarely mentioned.

Project I’m about to start, there’s people in Lisbon, Dubai, Manila and Sydney all working together. The plan is to meet up somewhere monthly for three days, and work remotely the rest of the time (with the occasional 7am or 7pm call).

That sounds sensible.

To work well together, you must personally know and respect them.

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

Indeed, PB is a perpetual virtual meeting, but the occasional meet up very welcome.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

Indeed, PB is a perpetual virtual meeting, but the occasional meet up very welcome.

But we never reach consensus

notme2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

On Greta Thunberg, that yacht journey won’t be pleasant. There’s no room. No proper nice food and (literally) just a pot to piss in.

She’ll also get unpleasantly sea sick at times, and very bored. Particularly since conversing with the crew won’t exactly be her forte. It’ll be a long two weeks.

I have a modicum of .

She’s getting attention for her cause and she’s making us think about the implications of it for an under-considered aspect of daily life. Good on her.

I went on a small boat the other day for a bit of whale watching. It was meagre by any standards but had a fully functioning toilet.

A yacht owned by a royal family will not have a pissing bucket.

This is an off shore racing yacht, not a caravan with sails, it has no head, presumably as that weakens the hull.

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

Indeed, PB is a perpetual virtual meeting, but the occasional meet up very welcome.

And might assist in getting HYUFD to actually engage occasionally with people actually write/say...

nichomar said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

MyBurningEars said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

WeWork IPO filing shows it's losing nearly $5,200 per customer

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wework-ipo-office-sharing-prospectus-s-1-shows-losses/

I clearly have this running a business lark all wrong...There's me trying tko make $5,200 per customer...

The Red Hot Chilli Peppers played at their company party.

And WeWork, by a large margin, is the largest customer of almost any new office development in the US or London.

It.

out".

They

I wonder how those kind of businesses do in a downturn. Like, ummm, the one the world is entering now.

Theres?

Oh, it's much worse than that.

You see WeWork hasn't even taken on most of it's capacity yet. They have to almost double their revenues in the next three years just to fill the space they're signed up to.

And the new stuff they are renting is at higher prices than the old. And they lose money (shit tonnes of it) even before this comes on board.

Anyone who buys their shares at IPO is an idiot.

So they’re already spending 150% of current turnover, have a bunch of long leases with a whole load more coming down the line, an easily replicable business model, no real IP and short-term customers who have choices. Yet they reckon they’re worth $50bn? Right, I have some tulips to sell you if you’d like them?

I’ve worked for myself for the last five years and still don’t see who is attracted to these places. A combination of home office, Starbucks, hotel suites and meeting rooms, or for longer projects a six-month lease on a small office are all way cheaper than WeWork. As others have said, a lot of work these days is done internationally on Slack and Skype anyway, with the occasional meeting in one of the above locations.

My view is that such technology can work but only when you already have a good relationship with the client or your colleagues.

Human relationships are built in person, for fairly obvious reasons, sometimes you need to break bread together to really establish them, and you can’t shortcut that.

Indeed, PB is a perpetual virtual meeting, but the occasional meet up very welcome.

But we never reach consensus

Surely the point of PB is not reaching consensus? betting requires at least a division into backers and layers.