In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
The other difference is that Putin has arranged for people to be poisoned horribly here, unleashed a completely unecessary barbaric war that’s cost tens of thousands of lives and is a kleptocrat. Understandable that people would cheer his demise.
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.
I wouldn't cheer his demise. But I wouldn't rush to condemn the inevitable celebrations in Ukraine, either.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
He’s not being puritanical. His is the policy (written and unwritten) of every large organisation I’ve ever worked in. As a manager or as someone responsible for students, you refrain from relationships with them. Even if you wouldn’t dream of favouring them, they might think you would. When it comes out, and it will, their peers might also think you would, or that you have.
As a manager toy don’t f*ck the payroll. As a teacher you don’t f*ck your students.
It is a very bad policy and it is not one of every employer, even if its one that you know.
Plenty of people here have confirmed that it is not their employers policy.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment it comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
"Oh, I'm sorry. I only took this job because I identified a large number of emotionally vulnerable, sexually attractive people who would be my direct reports. I'll leave now."
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
People are routinely propped up into their 80s with much worse health issues than his these days.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment it comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
"Oh, I'm sorry. I only took this job because I identified a large number of emotionally vulnerable, sexually attractive people who would be my direct reports. I'll leave now."
Quite. That's why it is so important to warn new inductees what is and is not on. It applies to bullying, racism, sexism, etc. too.
Itd does not in itself work completely - but it makes ti so much easier to sack them when problems occur.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Just looked up my employer's (university) policy.
No prohibition on any relationships.
Relationship involving student with which staff member has any professional involvement (e.g. if lecturer, supervisor, in any position to influence grades etc) has to be reported to line manager. Same for relationship with line manager/other person above in chain of command (reported to someone more senior, in that case). Colleague relationships reported to line manager.
Essentially, no prohibition, but disclosure to someone more senior if there's any possible perception of conflict of interest. Senior person then decides whether to reassign any duties. Seems sensible.
Absolutely rational.
Saying "there's other people they could have sex with instead" is like saying to a man "there's women you could have sex with instead" of the man they're attracted to.
Consenting adults should be able to have sex with whoever they want to, so long as the other party is also a consenting adult who wants to have sex with them too.
The problem with the line management liaison isn't the relationship, it's the breakup. Having to manage your ex or being managed by your ex can explode unless both parties are mature and sensible but that's rather rare in that sort of scenario.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
I agree, human interactions are messy. A requirement to notify and deal with "conflicts of interest" is the only justified regulatory requirement for relationships between consenting adults. Overregulating human relationships is oppressive and worse than the problems that are supposedly being addressed.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
He’s not being puritanical. His is the policy (written and unwritten) of every large organisation I’ve ever worked in. As a manager or as someone responsible for students, you refrain from relationships with them. Even if you wouldn’t dream of favouring them, they might think you would. When it comes out, and it will, their peers might also think you would, or that you have.
As a manager toy don’t f*ck the payroll. As a teacher you don’t f*ck your students.
Anyone else remember Harriet Harmon's tales from her time at York University?
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
The other difference is that Putin has arranged for people to be poisoned horribly here, unleashed a completely unecessary barbaric war that’s cost tens of thousands of lives and is a kleptocrat. Understandable that people would cheer his demise.
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.
There is a lot of unresolved bad blood between China and Japan over the atrocities that Japan carried out during its occupation of China in the 30s/40s. Abe was associated with a nationalist strain in Japanese politics and caused outrage in China when he visited a shrine to Japan's war dead including those responsible for the atrocities. Not that this excuses these kind of tasteless comments, far less the horrific murder of Abe itself, and undoubtedly the CCP exploits these WW2 issues for its own nationalist purposes, but it is useful to understand the context.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
There we go then, we've gone full circle.
As I said, lots of the married couples I know met at work.
What consenting adults do at work or otherwise is up to them. If there's a conflict of interest, then the employer has a legitimate interest to ask that be disclosed, but beyond that its puritanical BS to try to regulate or worse prohibit relationships.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
"Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue. "
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
He will face a crushing collapse in adrenaline at first but will probably be able to improve his diet and exercise regime out of office. I agree he does look absolutely terrible but I would reckon he will bounce back more energised than before. He will make life very hard for his successor.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
People are routinely propped up into their 80s with much worse health issues than his these days.
That I think is the point. They are keeping actively engaged with whatever it is they do. It's when you stop being actively engaged that the problems start.
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
I don't think we should get carried away with the idea of a 'triumph', but I do think in the excitement of it all - and the common tendency to believe that clearer rules for every scenario will automatically be better (despite many examples otherwise) - let some get carried away. As this puts it:
So has the constitution ‘worked’? That depends on what we expected of it. However, based on the established understanding of how Government works and is sustained in the UK, it is difficult to see in what sense the constitution has failed to work
There were always formal mechanisms available - the argument and 'crisis' was that Boris looked like he was going to make people use those formal mechanisms. And that's not really that much of a crisis.
It's a bit like when he went in for Covid and a lot of people seemed to think government might be paralysed if he was in there long, even though we still had a Cabinet, and deputised arrangements had been put in place, and someone could have been made actual/caretaker PM if it was an extended stay.
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
Indeed. And outside of intended humour, let's not try to psychologically analyse one another.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
"Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue. "
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
Vulcan was supposed to fly in 2020. It is now looking fairly likely that it will be 2023. While the payload now being the long pole in the tent, one does have to ask what was going to be the payload in 2020....
Wayne Hale on the RS-25 is somewhere between terrifying and cautionary. Gold pins.....
SpaceX are apparently using a similar development methodology for Raptor as for Merlin. Merlin evolved much more than the apparent versioning scheme suggests - the 1D was actually about a dozen variants, for example. It's rather like software - rapid releases of versions, with testing on a per version basis. So there is a sequence of production releases, while newer versions are in Dev, Int, UAT and er.. Staging? :-)
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
People are routinely propped up into their 80s with much worse health issues than his these days.
Just look at Winston Churchill. He became PM again.
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Authority for that? The nation rather depends on govt having confidence of the house at all times. What if in those 14 days or the recess someone declared war on us?
Genuine question - would you like him as PM? I assume he is more popular with some sections of the party than he is with people on here, but theoretically do you think he has what it takes? Or is it more that he is not a leader, even if he is liked by that section of the party?
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
No he can't. He has effectively zero power - he can't start a war unilaterally, and who would follow his orders to do so?
Also, you're assuming there won't be a coronation before the Commons rises.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs Lto adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
There we go then, we've gone full circle.
As I said, lots of the married couples I know met at work.
What consenting adults do at work or otherwise is up to them. If there's a conflict of interest, then the employer has a legitimate interest to ask that be disclosed, but beyond that its puritanical BS to try to regulate or worse prohibit relationships.
I don’t think anyone is saying you shouldn’t have a relationship in the workplace. The issue is having a relationship with someone where one of you has power over the other and there can be real or perceived conflicts of interest. In a large organisation you’d move people about to avoid it, once the relationship happened. I presume you can’t do that in a small firm, and you definitely can’t do it in student/teacher relationships, so there you have to rely on the person with the power to understand they shouldn’t do it.
I had a girlfriend in the same organisation for years. It was just ensured that we were never directly working with or for each other.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Authority for that? The nation rather depends on govt having confidence of the house at all times. What if in those 14 days or the recess someone declared war on us?
I don’t think it’s quite right that a government has to have the confidence of the house at all times. Callaghans government most certainly remained in office until the 1979 election, even after having proven to have lost confidence of Parliament
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
He’s not being puritanical. His is the policy (written and unwritten) of every large organisation I’ve ever worked in. As a manager or as someone responsible for students, you refrain from relationships with them. Even if you wouldn’t dream of favouring them, they might think you would. When it comes out, and it will, their peers might also think you would, or that you have.
As a manager toy don’t f*ck the payroll. As a teacher you don’t f*ck your students.
Anyone else remember Harriet Harmon's tales from her time at York University?
I hadn't heard that story before (just googled).
Obviously repulsive, but the systems are somewhat different now, at least. Most marking is anonymous and of course spread across a whole lot of modules, so it would be difficult to engineer (in our department, even within a module you're likely to get random allocation to more than one marker). Masters dissertations are anomymous (it's theoretically a fail if the student discloses identifying information, although there was one once where I knew who it was and we just agreed to redact the identifying passage as it was clearly accidental and not identifying to most potential markers and reallocate the marker) and markers allocated randomly.
Good policy for all kinds of reasons, but also to make that kind of thing very hard to arrange on a practical level and (hopefully) obvious nonsense to any student approached.
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
No he can't. He has effectively zero power - he can't start a war unilaterally, and who would follow his orders to do so?
Also, you're assuming there won't be a coronation before the Commons rises.
An entirely self torpedoing point: he will be fine as chief exec because nobody will carry out his orders. What if someone else starts ww3?
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Authority for that? The nation rather depends on govt having confidence of the house at all times. What if in those 14 days or the recess someone declared war on us?
What if someone had declared war on us between 8/4/97 and 1/5/97? Or between 7/4/79 and 3/5/79?
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
"Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue. "
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
Vulcan was supposed to fly in 2020. It is now looking fairly likely that it will be 2023. While the payload now being the long pole in the tent, one does have to ask what was going to be the payload in 2020....
Wayne Hale on the RS-25 is somewhere between terrifying and cautionary. Gold pins.....
SpaceX are apparently using a similar development methodology for Raptor as for Merlin. Merlin evolved much more than the apparent versioning scheme suggests - the 1D was actually about a dozen variants, for example. It's rather like software - rapid releases of versions, with testing on a per version basis. So there is a sequence of production releases, while newer versions are in Dev, Int, UAT and er.. Staging? :-)
But Merlins were flying before they got into that rapid development phase. They had a solid base as far back as 2006 (I don't think they've ever lost an orbital flight due to direct engine failure, which is quite a thing?)
BTW Starship was due to fly years ago as well. In 2017 Musk said it could be flying to Mars in 2022...
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
As ever I feel the need to be a pedant. We don’t use nuclear codes. The sub can just launch.
Genuine question - would you like him as PM? I assume he is more popular with some sections of the party than he is with people on here, but theoretically do you think he has what it takes? Or is it more that he is not a leader, even if he is liked by that section of the party?
It would be fun having him as Tory leader even if he would be unlikely to win a general election.
Unlikely to happen unless we were in opposition and Tory members decided to indulge themselves with Mogg as Labour members indulged themselves with Corbyn
I get that in his position he has to and has been praising leaders left, right and centre, and I am sure he will praise the next PM if they continue the same policies (indeed, he makes the point in essence, as most of his video is about the support the UK has provided, with only some words on Boris personally), so I do mostly agree with people who pour some cold water about the Boris/Zelensky love.
WIth all that being said, however, some world leaders have clearly received more praise than others, with some even receiving mild or more rebukes from the Ukrainians, who have to walk a fine line between chivvying counterparts for support and not pissing them off. And Boris is one of the world leaders they clearly like to promote, on the basis he has been swift and unambiguous in most of his statements.
That's not to say this is not about diplomacy (the intention of the video seems to be to reassure Ukrainians that Boris going will not change British support for them), and certainly doesn't counteract his unsuitability to be PM, but I also think it would be a bit churlish to suggest it means absolutely nothing.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
He will face a crushing collapse in adrenaline at first but will probably be able to improve his diet and exercise regime out of office. I agree he does look absolutely terrible but I would reckon he will bounce back more energised than before. He will make life very hard for his successor.
He's already made life very hard for his successor. I'm not sure what he does after he's actually, finally gone makes very much difference.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
That's very kind of you, my dear fiancee (am I allowed to tell people yet?), but I really don't mind. I'm old enough and ugly enough to look after myself
What DOES irritate me is @Heathener's hypocrisy. She comes out with unprovoked personal attacks, naming and slurring me, at 7am! - and then she moans like one of TSE's French stepmums when I reply in kind. As if I have transgressed and only she is allowed to be abusive
And then she complains about being so scared of personal attacks she "shakes with fear". So why start them then? It is quite mystifying
Anyway I've pointed this out to her and hopefully she will see the light. I live to educate
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Authority for that? The nation rather depends on govt having confidence of the house at all times. What if in those 14 days or the recess someone declared war on us?
What if someone had declared war on us between 8/4/97 and 1/5/97? Or between 7/4/79 and 3/5/79?
There is still a government and a non-discredited Prime Minister.
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
No he can't. He has effectively zero power - he can't start a war unilaterally, and who would follow his orders to do so?
Also, you're assuming there won't be a coronation before the Commons rises.
An entirely self torpedoing point: he will be fine as chief exec because nobody will carry out his orders. What if someone else starts ww3?
If someone else starts it he is probably as reasonable as anyone to respond. Or the party gets told by the palace 'Pick someone in the next 5 minutes'.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
As ever I feel the need to be a pedant. We don’t use nuclear codes. The sub can just launch.
On the word of Mr Johnson as Prime Minister, the defacto Head of the armed forces, a man who has, in the last 48 hours, behaved akin to someone on the cusp of a Section 37 order.
The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
See my following comment - it wouldn't change the timetable.
New PM ( temporary) in 14 days?
The two week window following a Commons VONC doesn't apply since DACOP repealed FTPA.
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
Authority for that? The nation rather depends on govt having confidence of the house at all times. What if in those 14 days or the recess someone declared war on us?
What if someone had declared war on us between 8/4/97 and 1/5/97? Or between 7/4/79 and 3/5/79?
There is still a government and a non-discredited Prime Minister.
Both of them were on their way out, one of them having lost a Commons VONC. There's no difference.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
While I tend to agree, and from a narrow partisan perspective would welcome this, my one doubt is his health. He just doesn’t look very healthy. Obese, a likely drink issue, long covid? How much stamina will he have once the dust has settled?
He will face a crushing collapse in adrenaline at first but will probably be able to improve his diet and exercise regime out of office. I agree he does look absolutely terrible but I would reckon he will bounce back more energised than before. He will make life very hard for his successor.
He's already made life very hard for his successor. I'm not sure what he does after he's actually, finally gone makes very much difference.
There are the decorations in the Downing Street flat for a start!
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Polls are going to be totally meaningless now until the new PM is in place and had a chance to settle in.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
A word on Mordaunt. Some of the War on Woke Warriors (Lozza/JHB etc) are pointing to her wokish past.
These folk are quite influential with some tory voters.
As a reasonably floaty voter, the suggested candidates who would be most likely to get my vote (for Cons in a GE) would be Sunak or Mordaunt. Neither are nutty, both look like they could do a reasonable job. Among the other sane candidates, Hunt I just dislike (however rational/irrational that is) and Javid, having dealt with him professionally, I do not rate.
Sunak or Mordaunt versus Starmer and I'd be looking carefully at the policies to make my decision. Most other of the expected potential leaders I'd be more inclined to vote for Starmer.
(Well, actually I'm in a safe Tory seat, so I'll probably vote LD as, most likely, the LD manifesto will be closest to my beliefs. But the above describes what I would do if in a seat that was in play between Lab and Con/if asked who I wanted to be PM after the GE)
Edit: So, my point being that it may matter for a membership vote (which is your point, I think, and a valid one) but it would be unlikely to be a negative in a GE. Lab and LD will be more 'woke', so unlikely to lose many Tory votes and have more appeal for the more rightist LD and Lab voters.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
As ever I feel the need to be a pedant. We don’t use nuclear codes. The sub can just launch.
On the word of Mr Johnson as Prime Minister, the defacto Head of the armed forces, a man who has, in the last 48 hours, behaved akin to someone on the cusp of a Section 37 order.
Still as a pedant, I feel the need to flag that Her Majesty’s control over the Armed Forces actually sits with prerogative powers handed to the Defence Council, chaired by the Defence Sec and not the PM.
In normal times this is obviously a distinction without a difference since the PM can just decide to become Defence Sec if the incumbent kicks off.
It’s actually quite interesting how little direct administrative power the PM has in this country. Most stuff technically sits with one SofS or another.
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
That's very kind of you, my dear fiancee (am I allowed to tell people yet?), but I really don't mind. I'm old enough and ugly enough to look after myself
What DOES irritate me is @Heathener's hypocrisy. She comes out with unprovoked personal attacks, naming and slurring me, at 7am! - and then she moans like one of TSE's French stepmums when I reply in kind. As if I have transgressed and only she is allowed to be abusive
And then she complains about being so scared of personal attacks she "shakes with fear". So why start them then? It is quite mystifying
Anyway I've pointed this out to her and hopefully she will see the light. I live to educate
I think she sees you as an example of toxic masculinity mate
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
Who do you think they'll vote for? Or will they just not vote?
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
Certainly possible. It bears noting that all of the resignations that finally prompted Boris to resign were from those who had stuck with him all this way and at long last snapped, enough had become enough as they said.
But it could well be that others, voters, less loyal reached that point before now, and won't be much impressed at those doing the right thing so late.
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
The other difference is that Putin has arranged for people to be poisoned horribly here, unleashed a completely unecessary barbaric war that’s cost tens of thousands of lives and is a kleptocrat. Understandable that people would cheer his demise.
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.
As mentioned Abe came from the nationalist, revisionist side of Japanese politics, including visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. I think that stuff has quite a bit of resonance in Chinese (& Korean) folk memory, no doubt ably stirred up by Xi & co.
Reading Wiki, 'According to Bannon, Abe was the first nationalist leader to win an election in an industrialized democracy and successfully govern as a nationalist." "Prime Minister Abe was Trump before Trump", Bannon declared, eliciting laughter from some LDP lawmakers' which suggests a certain vibe.
Interesting that his killer was ex JSDF, would have thought those guys would have problems with pols not being nationalist enough. Hadn't realise that there was quite such a history of politcal assasination in Japan.
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
Yeah, you try to convince yourself of that, Михаи́л.
The paranoia dripping from some contributors today is frightening.
Yeah, I have these psychotic delusions that the PM is an unreliable POS, accompanied by vivid hallucinations of Yvette Cooper saying uncontradicted in the HoC yesterday that he had, and covered up, unofficial meetings with a former KGB agent of which there is no record because he was too drunk to remember the details but at which they put in a call to Lavrov.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
There's nothing wrong with the boss of a company having relationships with staff provided it's consensual. To believe otherwise is puritanical nonsense in my opinion.
Allies say he is attracting a lot of support from colleagues.
What else are they going to say?
@MarqueeMark you often accused me in the past of being a "Boris hater". I denied this on several occasions, I really wasn't. He was not my Prime Minister, but I had no particular opinion, one way or the other about him outside his political competence and his peculiar lifestyle. However after the "non" resignation speech yesterday and his accusation that his demise was entirely the fault of the herd mentality of Conservative MPs, and the constant "sledging" by un-named actors, I confess you were right. I am a "Boris hater". I despise the man!
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs Lto adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
There we go then, we've gone full circle.
As I said, lots of the married couples I know met at work.
What consenting adults do at work or otherwise is up to them. If there's a conflict of interest, then the employer has a legitimate interest to ask that be disclosed, but beyond that its puritanical BS to try to regulate or worse prohibit relationships.
I don’t think anyone is saying you shouldn’t have a relationship in the workplace. The issue is having a relationship with someone where one of you has power over the other and there can be real or perceived conflicts of interest. In a large organisation you’d move people about to avoid it, once the relationship happened. I presume you can’t do that in a small firm, and you definitely can’t do it in student/teacher relationships, so there you have to rely on the person with the power to understand they shouldn’t do it.
I had a girlfriend in the same organisation for years. It was just ensured that we were never directly working with or for each other.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
"Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue. "
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
Vulcan was supposed to fly in 2020. It is now looking fairly likely that it will be 2023. While the payload now being the long pole in the tent, one does have to ask what was going to be the payload in 2020....
Wayne Hale on the RS-25 is somewhere between terrifying and cautionary. Gold pins.....
SpaceX are apparently using a similar development methodology for Raptor as for Merlin. Merlin evolved much more than the apparent versioning scheme suggests - the 1D was actually about a dozen variants, for example. It's rather like software - rapid releases of versions, with testing on a per version basis. So there is a sequence of production releases, while newer versions are in Dev, Int, UAT and er.. Staging? :-)
But Merlins were flying before they got into that rapid development phase. They had a solid base as far back as 2006 (I don't think they've ever lost an orbital flight due to direct engine failure, which is quite a thing?)
BTW Starship was due to fly years ago as well. In 2017 Musk said it could be flying to Mars in 2022...
errrr Merlin 1A? First time out it had an engine fire, IIRC. Only flew twice. SpaceX were iterating on the engine like crazy. Many, many versions before they got to the 1D. You could say the engine design stopped iterating manically* around 2015 or so...
There is a reason they call it Elon Time. “At SpaceX we specialize at converting the impossible to late”
*There was a chap at NASA who commented that in his career he was used to reviewing an engine design at a rate of 1 per x years. With SpaceX, Merlin and the human rating stuff he was reviewing engine designs by the week....
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So what was this book on sexual predation Leon wrote...i must admit he is by far the most interesting contributor to PB
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
That's very kind of you, my dear fiancee (am I allowed to tell people yet?), but I really don't mind. I'm old enough and ugly enough to look after myself
What DOES irritate me is @Heathener's hypocrisy. She comes out with unprovoked personal attacks, naming and slurring me, at 7am! - and then she moans like one of TSE's French stepmums when I reply in kind. As if I have transgressed and only she is allowed to be abusive
And then she complains about being so scared of personal attacks she "shakes with fear". So why start them then? It is quite mystifying
Anyway I've pointed this out to her and hopefully she will see the light. I live to educate
I think she sees you as an example of toxic masculinity mate
Is Herr Putin trying to sow rancour on PB, as he did with Scottish Independence? He needn't bother, we do quite well by ourselves. Indeed you will probably unite us against you
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So what was this book on sexual predation Leon wrote...i must admit he is by far the most interesting contributor to PB
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
That's very kind of you, my dear fiancee (am I allowed to tell people yet?), but I really don't mind. I'm old enough and ugly enough to look after myself
What DOES irritate me is @Heathener's hypocrisy. She comes out with unprovoked personal attacks, naming and slurring me, at 7am! - and then she moans like one of TSE's French stepmums when I reply in kind. As if I have transgressed and only she is allowed to be abusive
And then she complains about being so scared of personal attacks she "shakes with fear". So why start them then? It is quite mystifying
Anyway I've pointed this out to her and hopefully she will see the light. I live to educate
I think she sees you as an example of toxic masculinity mate
Is Herr Putin trying to sow rancour on PB, as he did with Scottish Independence? He needn't bother, we do quite well by ourselves. Indeed you will probably unite us against you
I've just described you as the most interesting contributor to PB and I get that...hate to think how you treat your enemies Leon
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So what was this book on sexual predation Leon wrote...i must admit he is by far the most interesting contributor to PB
I've always said you are one of the best young commenters on PB. The finest of a new generation. Perceptive, witty and wise beyond your years
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
As ever I feel the need to be a pedant. We don’t use nuclear codes. The sub can just launch.
On the word of Mr Johnson as Prime Minister, the defacto Head of the armed forces, a man who has, in the last 48 hours, behaved akin to someone on the cusp of a Section 37 order.
Still as a pedant, I feel the need to flag that Her Majesty’s control over the Armed Forces actually sits with prerogative powers handed to the Defence Council, chaired by the Defence Sec and not the PM.
In normal times this is obviously a distinction without a difference since the PM can just decide to become Defence Sec if the incumbent kicks off.
It’s actually quite interesting how little direct administrative power the PM has in this country. Most stuff technically sits with one SofS or another.
One could suggest SoSs are in Johnson's pocket in this Cabinet.
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
The other difference is that Putin has arranged for people to be poisoned horribly here, unleashed a completely unecessary barbaric war that’s cost tens of thousands of lives and is a kleptocrat. Understandable that people would cheer his demise.
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.
As mentioned Abe came from the nationalist, revisionist side of Japanese politics, including visits to the Yasukuni Shrine. I think that stuff has quite a bit of resonance in Chinese (& Korean) folk memory, no doubt ably stirred up by Xi & co.
Reading Wiki, 'According to Bannon, Abe was the first nationalist leader to win an election in an industrialized democracy and successfully govern as a nationalist." "Prime Minister Abe was Trump before Trump", Bannon declared, eliciting laughter from some LDP lawmakers' which suggests a certain vibe.
Interesting that his killer was ex JSDF, would have thought those guys would have problems with pols not being nationalist enough. Hadn't realise that there was quite such a history of politcal assasination in Japan.
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Polls are going to be totally meaningless now until the new PM is in place and had a chance to settle in.
Agreed although major leakage now makes it all the harder climbing back. There may be a small relief rally once the reality of his going hits those who have moved to 'dont know/wont vote', balanced oerhaps by borisites leaving and chaos punishers. Take the madness of Surrey/Mole Valley out of last nights bys and it was decline in vote but not total collapse/youre on notice, sort it out levels.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
"Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue. "
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
Vulcan was supposed to fly in 2020. It is now looking fairly likely that it will be 2023. While the payload now being the long pole in the tent, one does have to ask what was going to be the payload in 2020....
Wayne Hale on the RS-25 is somewhere between terrifying and cautionary. Gold pins.....
SpaceX are apparently using a similar development methodology for Raptor as for Merlin. Merlin evolved much more than the apparent versioning scheme suggests - the 1D was actually about a dozen variants, for example. It's rather like software - rapid releases of versions, with testing on a per version basis. So there is a sequence of production releases, while newer versions are in Dev, Int, UAT and er.. Staging? :-)
But Merlins were flying before they got into that rapid development phase. They had a solid base as far back as 2006 (I don't think they've ever lost an orbital flight due to direct engine failure, which is quite a thing?)
BTW Starship was due to fly years ago as well. In 2017 Musk said it could be flying to Mars in 2022...
errrr Merlin 1A? First time out it had an engine fire, IIRC. (Snip)
Wasn't the Falcon 1 first flight failure a fuel line leak in the rocket? (admittedly from memory).
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
On the Abe assassination, one possibility I have not seen mentionedhave just spotted mentioned about 10 minutes ago is that the weapon may be a 3d-printed-at-home gun.
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
Yeah, you try to convince yourself of that, Михаи́л.
Conservatives in the 20s in the polls...further economic deterioration and collapse beckons...Major mk 2 ain't gonna cut it
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So what was this book on sexual predation Leon wrote...i must admit he is by far the most interesting contributor to PB
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
As ever I feel the need to be a pedant. We don’t use nuclear codes. The sub can just launch.
On the word of Mr Johnson as Prime Minister, the defacto Head of the armed forces, a man who has, in the last 48 hours, behaved akin to someone on the cusp of a Section 37 order.
Still as a pedant, I feel the need to flag that Her Majesty’s control over the Armed Forces actually sits with prerogative powers handed to the Defence Council, chaired by the Defence Sec and not the PM.
In normal times this is obviously a distinction without a difference since the PM can just decide to become Defence Sec if the incumbent kicks off.
It’s actually quite interesting how little direct administrative power the PM has in this country. Most stuff technically sits with one SofS or another.
One could suggest SoSs are in Johnson's pocket in this Cabinet.
Yes. On the margins it becomes an interesting debate. Another relic of an age when they were each a monarch’s own appointments. And there were about three of them.
That remains wholly unsatisfactory as the now comprehensively discredited Johnson remains PM outside the scrutiny of the Hoc during recess. He can start the Third World War if he so desires that to be his legacy.
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Exactly
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
The U.K. doesn’t have “Nuclear codes” - we have “Letters of Last Resort” - assuming Johnson actually wrote his….
Boris will not earn his much-needed money through sales of his personal memoir. He may get a mildly decent advance but the actual books won't sell. No one wants to read a serial liar's spin and self-justification these days. Biographies about this turbulent time might do better but non-fiction generally struggles these days. The internet is such a great, and terrible, resource for finding out information, as are endless tv shows, that there are very few rabbits left for a non-fiction author to pull out of the hat.
As I mentioned, I doubt he will fill halls for talks either. No one wants to listen to a failure and liar, and he's a poor public speaker. As chaotic as in everything else. His best hope will be after-dinner speeches when everyone is too drunk to mind incoherent ramblings about Peppa Pig world.
Leon got very personal with us all over this but, of course, the reason he's so irate is his own fear. Boris Johnson was a serial philanderer, a man approaching sixty whose attitude to sexual predation belonged to an era from which most of society has moved on. Boris Johnson got the top job for one reason and one reason only: to deliver Brexit. And that was on the back of the Remainer Parliament and an unelectable anti-Semitic Trotskyite Labour leader. As a person Boris was manifestly unsuited to the top job and the page on the chapter has already been turned. The flowers fade and the grass withers. It happens to all of us and some deserve it more than others.
The country is leaving Boris and his type of politics and personal behaviour behind. Whether that's under a reboot of the Conservative brand, or a completely new broom under Labour-LibDems, we will wait to see. But move on it has, and is.
You’re not the first PB-er to fall in love with me
Shhhh, secret, but I'm not into men. You may have noticed.
My partner is a gorgeous female.
Is she not worried that you’re clearly obsessed with me?
As for Bozza’s earnings, here’s the Independent:
“Mr Johnson, who is famously at home with deploying incendiary turns of phrase, would without doubt be in receipt of handsome offers from publishers for his Downing Street memoirs. Mr Blair received a reported £4.6m advance for his tome, with the sum being donated to charity.”
And here’s the Mail;
“Mr Johnson could become 'Billion Dollar Boris' if he plays his cards right with book deals, broadcast slots and speech circuits.
Experts say he will 'eclipse Tony Blair' and could net double the estimated £10million a year the former Labour leader made from speeches after office.
Mr Johnson, who once moaned his £250,000 Daily Telegraph column salary was 'chicken feed', is estimated to 'easily' earn £400,000 per speech while his memoirs could sell for 'at least' £1million
PR guru Mark Borkowski said: 'Boris is fairly wise and over the next 25 years if he can continue to grow it's going to be Billion Dollar Boris. He's a global brand, and with the right management, this is beyond speech-making.'“
Johnson certainly has a fanbase, but not one that pays £400 000 to hear of Peppa Pig.
In the UK no one wants or has a role for an ex-PM, they either sulk on the back benches (Heath, May) or lock themselves away, pretending that they still have significance (Blair, Brown, Thatcher), or completely disappear (Cameron). Major seems to be the only one enjoying himself.
I know you will claim that as a joke but you, of course, won't see that it's the kind of vindictive personal comment that drags this place and the people who post here, down.
When you don't like someone else's point of view you always resort to ad hominem. You sneer at a person for some trait you think you have a right to expose.
I hope everyone else on here has a nice day xx
You’ve done it again. You’ve started an argument with personal abuse, and then, when it is returned, you can’t cope and you cry foul
[...]
@Leon 'Leon' I was merely suggesting that the reason you are so upset and irate about Boris' decline is that it plays into your own fears. You wrote a book about sexual predation - we all know that - and you're now in your 60's and no longer the young stud you told the world about. Boris was in many ways your kind of man. You wrote an entire book about how to win women. You have frequently boasted about your sexual conquests with 'much' younger women, girls, teenagers.
You have spent a LOT of time attacking those who have campaigned for Boris to go. And you have totemised Boris. This after a Damascene conversion on the way to the ballot box.
I am suggesting that the reason for this may well be that when much of the country is turning its back on the kind of attitudes that you and Boris share, you are upset and irate about it. It's not rocket science. The market for your kind of male sexual predation has receded and the country has moved on from your book, just as it has now from Boris. Hence why you have had to reinvent yourself at least twice with pseudonymns as an author. Your particular brand under your real name (which I shall not mention) has had its day.
Instead of raging against the dying light, try to be kind to people and especially to yourself in your older guise. It will make the world, and here, a better place.
I find this a very inappropriate post. An unnecessarily personal attack, borderline defamatory.
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation, let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So what was this book on sexual predation Leon wrote...i must admit he is by far the most interesting contributor to PB
I've always said you are one of the best young commenters on PB. The finest of a new generation. Perceptive, witty and wise beyond your years
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Yeah two this morning (also Techne) push Con into the 20s on 29. Probably best to see if this holds over a fortnight or is a knee jerk to the chaos if this week
Many voters are disgusted with the way the conservatives have behaved this week . Much support won't be coming back
The disgust is mostly directed at the hulking form of a soon-to-be ex-PM. The Conservatives have got rid. Some voters will mourn his passing (but are unlikely to go to Labour/LibDem to register their disgust).
Many, many more will give the new leader/PM a fair hearing they would not have extended to Boris.
Comments
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
Plenty of people here have confirmed that it is not their employers policy.
Itd does not in itself work completely - but it makes ti so much easier to sack them when problems occur.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
As I said, lots of the married couples I know met at work.
What consenting adults do at work or otherwise is up to them. If there's a conflict of interest, then the employer has a legitimate interest to ask that be disclosed, but beyond that its puritanical BS to try to regulate or worse prohibit relationships.
The payload for the first Vulcan/Centaur flight (the Peregrine lander) currently appears to be the gating issue, not the rocket itself.
You are correct about the Merlin RUDs: but the difference is they had working, stable versions for most of the time as they furthered the engine development. They don't have a proven stable version of Raptor V2. I just cannot see the RUDs being good news for this stage of Raptor development, with a suborbital launch coming up with dozens of the things on board.
(Having said that, the SSME was still having failures until relatively shortly before the first flight, so it might be okay. Might....)
At least that's my experience!
A successful Commons VONC would see Boris going to see the Queen and saying "my successor as elected by the party in the election which is already under way will be able to command a majority" and HMQ saying "well, as there's only a couple of weeks of parliament left before the recess, there's no point appointing an interim PM and you can stay as caretaker". Utterly pointless.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1545343324038615040?s=20&t=QdsTE0zjkdvrsQA_4C9M6A
https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/status/1545135137737900032?s=20&t=QdsTE0zjkdvrsQA_4C9M6A
As for the idea that the country has turned its back on male sexual predation,
let's get real. Male sexual predators will still be operating and getting away with it and having their behaviour overlooked long after Boris has gone, in Westminster as elsewhere.
Few of us know other posters in real life and our online personas all have some level of invention, by omission if nothing else. But even if we do know people, to use that personal knowledge to attack others on a public forum seems to me to be wrong and a breach of confidence.
@Leon is a character: often interesting and insightful, at other times dull or tedious. As are we all, me and you included.
If you don't like @Leon, scroll past his posts. It's very easy to do.
So has the constitution ‘worked’? That depends on what we expected of it. However, based on the established understanding of how Government works and is sustained in the UK, it is difficult to see in what sense the constitution has failed to work
There were always formal mechanisms available - the argument and 'crisis' was that Boris looked like he was going to make people use those formal mechanisms. And that's not really that much of a crisis.
It's a bit like when he went in for Covid and a lot of people seemed to think government might be paralysed if he was in there long, even though we still had a Cabinet, and deputised arrangements had been put in place, and someone could have been made actual/caretaker PM if it was an extended stay.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Whenever I dismissed a discredited employee, I escorted them out of the door as soon as was practical, normally moments after they had been terminated. If that meant they were paid off, so be it. They were nonetheless removed to minimise any immediate or future damage they could cause.
Wayne Hale on the RS-25 is somewhere between terrifying and cautionary. Gold pins.....
SpaceX are apparently using a similar development methodology for Raptor as for Merlin. Merlin evolved much more than the apparent versioning scheme suggests - the 1D was actually about a dozen variants, for example. It's rather like software - rapid releases of versions, with testing on a per version basis. So there is a sequence of production releases, while newer versions are in Dev, Int, UAT and er.. Staging? :-)
Also, you're assuming there won't be a coronation before the Commons rises.
I had a girlfriend in the same organisation for years. It was just ensured that we were never directly working with or for each other.
Mogg as leader is a Rotten suggestion.
Terminated employees are locked out of their email account
BoZo still has the nuclear codes...
Obviously repulsive, but the systems are somewhat different now, at least. Most marking is anonymous and of course spread across a whole lot of modules, so it would be difficult to engineer (in our department, even within a module you're likely to get random allocation to more than one marker). Masters dissertations are anomymous (it's theoretically a fail if the student discloses identifying information, although there was one once where I knew who it was and we just agreed to redact the identifying passage as it was clearly accidental and not identifying to most potential markers and reallocate the marker) and markers allocated randomly.
Good policy for all kinds of reasons, but also to make that kind of thing very hard to arrange on a practical level and (hopefully) obvious nonsense to any student approached.
BTW Starship was due to fly years ago as well. In 2017 Musk said it could be flying to Mars in 2022...
Unlikely to happen unless we were in opposition and Tory members decided to indulge themselves with Mogg as Labour members indulged themselves with Corbyn
I get that in his position he has to and has been praising leaders left, right and centre, and I am sure he will praise the next PM if they continue the same policies (indeed, he makes the point in essence, as most of his video is about the support the UK has provided, with only some words on Boris personally), so I do mostly agree with people who pour some cold water about the Boris/Zelensky love.
WIth all that being said, however, some world leaders have clearly received more praise than others, with some even receiving mild or more rebukes from the Ukrainians, who have to walk a fine line between chivvying counterparts for support and not pissing them off. And Boris is one of the world leaders they clearly like to promote, on the basis he has been swift and unambiguous in most of his statements.
That's not to say this is not about diplomacy (the intention of the video seems to be to reassure Ukrainians that Boris going will not change British support for them), and certainly doesn't counteract his unsuitability to be PM, but I also think it would be a bit churlish to suggest it means absolutely nothing.
I'm not sure what he does after he's actually, finally gone makes very much difference.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-36824917.amp
These folk are quite influential with some tory voters.
What DOES irritate me is @Heathener's hypocrisy. She comes out with unprovoked personal attacks, naming and slurring me, at 7am! - and then she moans like one of TSE's French stepmums when I reply in kind. As if I have transgressed and only she is allowed to be abusive
And then she complains about being so scared of personal attacks she "shakes with fear". So why start them then? It is quite mystifying
Anyway I've pointed this out to her and hopefully she will see the light. I live to educate
It's basically 'Ok to be sad to see Boris go, but don't worry the UK will still be supporting us'.
Have we discussed this? Lab 11 point lead with YouGov.
Allies say he is attracting a lot of support from colleagues.
How near are the Lib Dems to overtaking the Conservatives? That surely is the important question.
Like Margaret Thatcher after her resignation, Boris Johnson is more appreciated abroad (ex-EU) than at home.
It could be as inpenetrable as some of my walls of text, but with a lengthy discussion about the Mytilenean Debate and the ethics of punitive action.
Although he will certainly make the 5% given he still has much of his 2019 supporters still on scene
Sunak or Mordaunt versus Starmer and I'd be looking carefully at the policies to make my decision. Most other of the expected potential leaders I'd be more inclined to vote for Starmer.
(Well, actually I'm in a safe Tory seat, so I'll probably vote LD as, most likely, the LD manifesto will be closest to my beliefs. But the above describes what I would do if in a seat that was in play between Lab and Con/if asked who I wanted to be PM after the GE)
Edit: So, my point being that it may matter for a membership vote (which is your point, I think, and a valid one) but it would be unlikely to be a negative in a GE. Lab and LD will be more 'woke', so unlikely to lose many Tory votes and have more appeal for the more rightist LD and Lab voters.
In normal times this is obviously a distinction without a difference since the PM can just decide to become Defence Sec if the incumbent kicks off.
It’s actually quite interesting how little direct administrative power the PM has in this country. Most stuff technically sits with one SofS or another.
But it could well be that others, voters, less loyal reached that point before now, and won't be much impressed at those doing the right thing so late.
Reading Wiki, 'According to Bannon, Abe was the first nationalist leader to win an election in an industrialized democracy and successfully govern as a nationalist." "Prime Minister Abe was Trump before Trump", Bannon declared, eliciting laughter from some LDP lawmakers' which suggests a certain vibe.
Interesting that his killer was ex JSDF, would have thought those guys would have problems with pols not being nationalist enough. Hadn't realise that there was quite such a history of politcal assasination in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assassinated_Japanese_politicians
I should see someone.
There is a reason they call it Elon Time. “At SpaceX we specialize at converting the impossible to late”
*There was a chap at NASA who commented that in his career he was used to reviewing an engine design at a rate of 1 per x years. With SpaceX, Merlin and the human rating stuff he was reviewing engine designs by the week....
Btw are these letters handwritten ?
Composing them on a computer might be highly insecure.
And if so, do we check that the PM's handwriting is actually legible ?
They sent Yamamoto to sea so that the ultra-nationalists wouldn't murder him....
Take the madness of Surrey/Mole Valley out of last nights bys and it was decline in vote but not total collapse/youre on notice, sort it out levels.
On the Abe assassination, one possibility
I have not seen mentionedhave just spotted mentioned about 10 minutes ago is that the weapon may be a 3d-printed-at-home gun.Many ramifications if so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSPV_CGJ9bA
Many, many more will give the new leader/PM a fair hearing they would not have extended to Boris.