Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

SKS looks out of step with his party on renationisation – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageSKS looks out of step with his party on renationisation – politicalbetting.com

We are now moving into that period of the year when all the focus in domestic politics will be on the agendas at the autumn party conferences.

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Why make your flagship policy an expensive financial shuffle that will improve nothing for almost everyone who uses the service?
  • Like Blair, Starmer leads his party, he doesn't follow it.

    Good man.
  • renationalisation....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,811
    Have we done this?

    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/06/britainpredicts/

    Lots of debatable assumptions, but not just a projection of polling, so possibly "Labour majority" is too long in the betting markets.
  • Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,811
    Certainly a remarkable consensus behind nationalisation in that poll, somewhat masked by the strange non-proportional barcaharts. Is support for private rail really down to 3%??
  • It's funny just how much of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto in being enacted by the Tories, high tax & spending, renationalising so much, Brexit...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,096

    Have we done this?

    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/06/britainpredicts/

    Lots of debatable assumptions, but not just a projection of polling, so possibly "Labour majority" is too long in the betting markets.

    Even at current 3.7?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 2
    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Certainly a remarkable consensus behind nationalisation in that poll, somewhat masked by the strange non-proportional barcaharts. Is support for private rail really down to 3%??

    That's because only Tories count, according to some on here. We are not equal in the Tory state.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited September 2
    boulay said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Screenwriters should have disclaimers at the end like how historical fiction writers often go over things they changed and why, for instance apologising that X probably wasn't as much a villain as they made them look, but they needed a bad guy.

    My favourite was Bernard Cornwell talking about substituting Sharpe in for the guy who actually heroically stormed the breach at Badajoz (or wherever), on the basis that 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'. And of course, even the heroes based on real people are still fictional.
    I was listening to an interview with Robert Harris this morning about his new book “Act of Oblivion” and this situation came up.

    It’s based on the true story about two of the signatories of Charles I death warrant, a father and son, who fled to America after the restoration and were hunted all over the states with a large bounty on their (literal) heads.

    He made the point that he had to invent a character who was the person doing the hunt as he felt it impossible otherwise to hook all the story and the political and religious turmoil of the events without it effectively being through the eyes of a main protagonist.

    I was part disappointed that historical accuracy will be lost but on the other hand I thought that if it told a story well of a situation very few really know about then it should be good.

    Might wait for the Amazon reimagining though.

    Sounds interesting. Some of the regicides had very...er, interesting times after the restoration.

    Killers of the King by Charles Spencer (which definitely gets into the story behind that Harris book it seems) and The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson (about John Cooke, the Solicitor General who tried the case) are both good reads.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,654
    Tbh, I’ve already decided how I’ll vote at the next GE. Voted Tory at every election. I will vote for Starmer next time.
  • Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited September 2

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    Yep. Sounds believable - he's been told he can declassify things, so would assume there's no need for any sort of process or assessment to do so.

    Seen it before with the GOP and mouthpieces though. Next week they'll be toeing the line. Not to bang on too much, but its worth bearing in mind how Pence, a man a Trump mob would have lynched if they'd had the chance, won't oppose him too obviously even then.

    Edit: The funny part is how deferential most appear to be, outraged at the idea of a President being raided, when there are surely legitimate occasions to do so.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913

    It's funny just how much of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto in being enacted by the Tories, high tax & spending, renationalising so much, Brexit...

    The top rate of income tax at 45% is far below what Foot wanted, most of the key utilities remain privatised.

    Foot was pro Brexit but so was Enoch Powell
  • eekeek Posts: 21,769
    Fpt

    Cyclefree said:

    I am laughing like a drain at Boris using Peters & Peters as his solicitors.

    In my field they are well known as one of the firms you go to if you're accused of fraud or other serious financial offences.

    We use S&M for that.

    Sorry Slaughter & May, must stop calling them S&M.
    In my experience, they get irrationally irritated about incorrect use of the ampersand rather than "and" in their name. It's Slaughter and May, not Slaughter & May.

    So, if you're corresponding with them, it's really important to bear that in mind and use the ampersand as much as possible.
    How do they react to the American variation of Slaughter + May
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,836
    kle4 said:

    boulay said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Screenwriters should have disclaimers at the end like how historical fiction writers often go over things they changed and why, for instance apologising that X probably wasn't as much a villain as they made them look, but they needed a bad guy.

    My favourite was Bernard Cornwell talking about substituting Sharpe in for the guy who actually heroically stormed the breach at Badajoz (or wherever), on the basis that 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'. And of course, even the heroes based on real people are still fictional.
    I was listening to an interview with Robert Harris this morning about his new book “Act of Oblivion” and this situation came up.

    It’s based on the true story about two of the signatories of Charles I death warrant, a father and son, who fled to America after the restoration and were hunted all over the states with a large bounty on their (literal) heads.

    He made the point that he had to invent a character who was the person doing the hunt as he felt it impossible otherwise to hook all the story and the political and religious turmoil of the events without it effectively being through the eyes of a main protagonist.

    I was part disappointed that historical accuracy will be lost but on the other hand I thought that if it told a story well of a situation very few really know about then it should be good.

    Might wait for the Amazon reimagining though.

    Sounds interesting. Some of the regicides had very...er, interesting times after the restoration.

    Killers of the King by Charles Spencer (which definitely gets into the story behind that Harris book it seems) and The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson (about John Cooke, the Solicitor General who tried the case) are both good reads.
    Didn't John Bradshaw try Charles I?
  • Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565753825960525826
    Bill Barr: "I think the driver on this from the beginning was loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this was unprecedented, well it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, ok!"

    Nail -> Head.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,109
    Is that a poll of Labour members or the electorate as a whole? Astonishing if it is all voters. Can't even be seen as a leading question.

    Whatever you think the Tories ought to be asking why such policies lack public appeal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited September 2
    Chris said:

    kle4 said:

    boulay said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    The screenwriter (and/or producers or whatever) also did not understand:-

    1. In The Imitation Game, how Enigma was deciphered at Bletchley Park. It is ludicrous to have the bombes fail until the last-minute realisation they could use cribs when that was what the bombes were designed for. And while I can understand why they had to simplify how intelligence was handled (eg not saving the convoy) it was still stupid to have Turing and his mates decide.

    2. In Dunkirk, that French soldiers were evacuated on the same basis as the British, so the whole Frenchman in British uniform subplot was absurd.

    3. In Bohemian Rhapsody, when they stand around pointlessly naming their colleges, why it mattered only that John Deacon did electronics so could play with the band's equipment; also the importance of Kenny Everett.

    4. And other stuff that annoys me about films... See, now you've got me ranting.
    Screenwriters should have disclaimers at the end like how historical fiction writers often go over things they changed and why, for instance apologising that X probably wasn't as much a villain as they made them look, but they needed a bad guy.

    My favourite was Bernard Cornwell talking about substituting Sharpe in for the guy who actually heroically stormed the breach at Badajoz (or wherever), on the basis that 'fictional heroes need suitable employment'. And of course, even the heroes based on real people are still fictional.
    I was listening to an interview with Robert Harris this morning about his new book “Act of Oblivion” and this situation came up.

    It’s based on the true story about two of the signatories of Charles I death warrant, a father and son, who fled to America after the restoration and were hunted all over the states with a large bounty on their (literal) heads.

    He made the point that he had to invent a character who was the person doing the hunt as he felt it impossible otherwise to hook all the story and the political and religious turmoil of the events without it effectively being through the eyes of a main protagonist.

    I was part disappointed that historical accuracy will be lost but on the other hand I thought that if it told a story well of a situation very few really know about then it should be good.

    Might wait for the Amazon reimagining though.

    Sounds interesting. Some of the regicides had very...er, interesting times after the restoration.

    Killers of the King by Charles Spencer (which definitely gets into the story behind that Harris book it seems) and The Tyrannicide Brief by Geoffrey Robertson (about John Cooke, the Solicitor General who tried the case) are both good reads.
    Didn't John Bradshaw try Charles I?
    Cooke prosecuted, an error in my terminology.

    It's the poor clerks to the court I feel sorry for, they didn't get let off either.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    Told you he was going out of fashion with the right.
  • And who are the people who think Starmer should go around promising to nationalise everything going to vote for in the end? Starmer thinks it'll largely be Labour, and I think he's largely right.

    There are a couple of problems with promising large scale nationalisation. Firstly, you get characterised as wastefully spending vast sums, at the behest of union barons, on stuff that doesn't actually keep pensioners warm in winter, and that puts off the soft Tories you want to win over. Secondly, and more importantly, you then have to bloody well do it in office, and the reality is your entire first term is taking up with huge projects that don't actually deliver the improved rail services and cheaper energy bills people fantasise about - it sucks the oxygen out of your administration for the sake of a few headlines.

    I know this site is about short term electoral politics and betting. But political leaders do actually have to think about what they want to end up spending the capital they earn through electoral success on. That's the legacy, and also the reelection chance - you try to do stuff that might have a good chance of working so people say "yes, I do think things are better than 4 years ago". Otherwise it's all tactics and no strategy, which is doomed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990
    kle4 said:

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    It would moreover not be legal.

    Presidents have powers to declassify, but there are limitations on that power, both written into law, and constrained by previous presidential directives on declassification.
    As Congress had not repealed those laws, and nor had Trump issued directives superseding the ones still in force, he remained subject to and bound by those laws and directives, president or not.

    What Barr is describing is a fiction which exists only in the minds of those still trying to placate the orange @rse. And perhaps those of a few seriously dodgy judges Trump had appointed during his term.
  • Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    It's always been fairly obvious Fox Top Brass (Lachlan Murdoch etc) detest Trump but find it hard to disengage due to competitors on the right and because he is VERY popular amongst their viewers. So they've been locked into this weird public fawning, private loathing.

    Interesting, though, that they possibly sense blood in the water and some chance to break free. And very good news for Ron DeSantis if they can.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,148
    Starmer has moved Labour away from the Corbynite left. Has he over compensated?
  • Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    It's always been fairly obvious Fox Top Brass (Lachlan Murdoch etc) detest Trump but find it hard to disengage due to competitors on the right and because he is VERY popular amongst their viewers. So they've been locked into this weird public fawning, private loathing.

    Interesting, though, that they possibly sense blood in the water and some chance to break free. And very good news for Ron DeSantis if they can.
    What would the odds be on

    1) De Santis losing this November

    and then

    2) Winning the GOP nomination for 2024?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    It would moreover not be legal.

    Presidents have powers to declassify, but there are limitations on that power, both written into law, and constrained by previous presidential directives on declassification.
    As Congress had not repealed those laws, and nor had Trump issued directives superseding the ones still in force, he remained subject to and bound by those laws and directives, president or not.

    What Barr is describing is a fiction which exists only in the minds of those still trying to placate the orange @rse. And perhaps those of a few seriously dodgy judges Trump had appointed during his term.
    I can easily believe some of their top politicians - that is the ones on the court - arguing that there is no constitutional limitation on the power to declassify or some such, and therefore any required procedures in statute or anywhere else do not apply.

    But I can even more easily believe Trump thinks nothing a President does (even when out of office) can be illegal. Unless it was his opponent.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238

    Starmer has moved Labour away from the Corbynite left. Has he over compensated?

    Polls currently say no, check again in a year.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990
    Regarding the polling in the header, what exactly is meant by “Energy” ?

    The grid; the retailers; the generators; oil and gas producers; wind turbine operators etc ?

    Or all of the above - which would be absurd.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited September 2
    Rail water and energy, yes. Nationalise the feck out of ‘em.

    Royal Mail, no. I don’t care about that. I’m fine with privatisation. Snail mail is dying and a competitive private sector does the job perfectly well.

    Related - I think there’s a decent case for keeping the post office as a publicly owned public service and expanding it into a full-service “front-of-house” public-facing government shop. Proper identity verification services for .gov. Perhaps they could take on some of those legal services, where you currently need an expensive, qualified person to sign/stamp documents etc. Use legislation to force these new branchless app-banks to offer counter services through them. Etc etc. maybe combine them with libraries, in some locations.
  • Starmer has moved Labour away from the Corbynite left. Has he over compensated?

    Not really.

    The bottom line is that we can't renationalise these industries because there is less than no money left.

    Over the next few years, there's a risk we won't be able to afford luxuries like clean beaches, because we won't be able to afford the things that make beaches clean.

    Because we collectively decided to prioritise house prices, nice views from The Old Vicarage and National Prestige.

    None of this is fixed or eternal, but bad choices have consequences.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    It would moreover not be legal.

    Presidents have powers to declassify, but there are limitations on that power, both written into law, and constrained by previous presidential directives on declassification.
    As Congress had not repealed those laws, and nor had Trump issued directives superseding the ones still in force, he remained subject to and bound by those laws and directives, president or not.

    What Barr is describing is a fiction which exists only in the minds of those still trying to placate the orange @rse. And perhaps those of a few seriously dodgy judges Trump had appointed during his term.
    I can easily believe some of their top politicians - that is the ones on the court - arguing that there is no constitutional limitation on the power to declassify or some such, and therefore any required procedures in statute or anywhere else do not apply.
    That would be a nonsensical argument.
    Irrespective of whether there are constitutional limitations, there are existing legal limitations.
    Absent their repeal, they apply to Presidents as much as to any other person.

    The President is not an absolute monarch; he is subject to the nation’s laws in the same way as everyone else.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    It would moreover not be legal.

    Presidents have powers to declassify, but there are limitations on that power, both written into law, and constrained by previous presidential directives on declassification.
    As Congress had not repealed those laws, and nor had Trump issued directives superseding the ones still in force, he remained subject to and bound by those laws and directives, president or not.

    What Barr is describing is a fiction which exists only in the minds of those still trying to placate the orange @rse. And perhaps those of a few seriously dodgy judges Trump had appointed during his term.
    I can easily believe some of their top politicians - that is the ones on the court - arguing that there is no constitutional limitation on the power to declassify or some such, and therefore any required procedures in statute or anywhere else do not apply.
    That would be a nonsensical argument.
    Irrespective of whether there are constitutional limitations, there are existing legal limitations.
    Absent their repeal, they apply to Presidents as much as to any other person.

    The President is not an absolute monarch; he is subject to the nation’s laws in the same way as everyone else.
    Of course it is nonsensical. But when has that stopped them arguing things? The President being an absolute monarch, unaccountable and untouchable, seems to implicitly be at the heart of quite a few defences of Trump.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990
    This criminal statute makes no exception for twice impeached former presidents who deny they’ve lost that office, or for those whose violations of the statute are committed in plain sight rather than under cover of darkness!
    https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1565747762972557312
  • ping said:

    Rail water and energy, yes. Nationalise the feck out of ‘em.

    Royal Mail, no. I don’t care about that. I’m fine with privatisation. Snail mail is dying and a competitive private sector does the job perfectly well.

    Related - I think there’s a decent case for keeping the post office as a publicly owned public service and expanding it into a full-service “front-of-house” public-facing government shop. Proper identity verification services for .gov. Perhaps they could take on some of those legal services, where you currently need an expensive, qualified person to sign/stamp documents etc. Use legislation to force these new branchless app-banks to offer counter services through them. Etc etc. maybe combine them with libraries, in some locations.

    A fair chunk of that happens already. You can access banks and pseudo banks at post office counters, and they will do document certification.

    But a dignified public office in every neighbourhood, whose services were widely known and used, would be a very good thing.
  • Reminder: at some point, inside information about the count may be leaked.

    Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    19.5 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.05 Liz Truss 95%
    19 Rishi Sunak 5%
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990
    This is an excellent article by the lawyer who argued the Nixon tapes case before the Supreme Court, which entrenched the precedent that the President is bound by regulation.

    No, Trump didn’t declassify everything; it’s barred by the Nixon tapes decision
    https://thehill.com/opinion/3622679-no-trump-didnt-declassify-everything-its-barred-by-the-nixon-tapes-decision/
    … The court also rebuffed the contention that the president’s ultimate control over the regulations and the attorney general who issued them undercut their binding effect on the president: “[I]t is theoretically possible for the Attorney General to amend or revoke the regulation defining the Special Prosecutor’s authority. But he has not done so. So long as this regulation remains in force the Executive Branch” — including the president there — “is bound by it, and indeed the United States as the sovereign composed of the three branches is bound to respect and to enforce it.”…
  • Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    It's always been fairly obvious Fox Top Brass (Lachlan Murdoch etc) detest Trump but find it hard to disengage due to competitors on the right and because he is VERY popular amongst their viewers. So they've been locked into this weird public fawning, private loathing.

    Interesting, though, that they possibly sense blood in the water and some chance to break free. And very good news for Ron DeSantis if they can.
    What would the odds be on

    1) De Santis losing this November

    and then

    2) Winning the GOP nomination for 2024?
    Incredibly long, and not very attractive at any price I suspect.

    Firstly, he's very unlikely to lose in November as, although polls have picked up for Democrats, it's still a midterm, in it's a reddish-purple state Trump won by 3.5% in 2020.

    Secondly, because he's unlikely to lose, if he did it'd be a big shock and very damaging to his brand. He can't then claim to be a popular, campaigning conservative, or a winner... he'd have lost an election that people thought was pretty much in the bag. So the unlikely event of the first happening makes the second really unlikely.

    I know Nixon won a Presidential election after losing a Gubernatorial election in bruising fashion. But that was six years earlier, and he was up against an incumbent so his loss was disappointing (and the margin a bit surprising at the time) but not a total bolt from the blue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,096
    edited September 2
    kle4 said:

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305


    Bill Barr: "If in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said I hereby declassify everything in here, that would be such an abuse and -- that shows such recklessness it’s almost worse than taking the documents


    Yep. Sounds believable - he's been told he can declassify things, so would assume there's no need for any sort of process or assessment to do so.

    Seen it before with the GOP and mouthpieces though. Next week they'll be toeing the line. Not to bang on too much, but its worth bearing in mind how Pence, a man a Trump mob would have lynched if they'd had the chance, won't oppose him too obviously even then.
    With Donald Trump it's important to appreciate that nothing drives him other than immediate self-gratification. People, supporters and critics alike, often credit him with having ideas, strategies, political priorities. He does not. If allowed only a single word to describe him, I wouldn't go with the usual suspects, eg mad or bad or stupid, although they all fit to a certain extent, the one I'd choose to nail the essence of the man is 'puerile'. He is always and relentlessly puerile. This is yet another reason l feel close to certain that America will not put him back in the WH. Just not happening.
  • Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,174
    edited September 2

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    QTWTAIY.

    But Johnson doesn't really care any more. Yes it's totally indefensible spaffing of public money. But he's spent the summer essentially saying he doesn't give two sh1ts about that and he'll just be doing it until they cut up the credit card next week.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,962
    Evening all :)

    Starmer is, unlike Liz Truss, not going to provide too many hostages to fortune so far out from a GE with a huge amount of uncertainty not only through this winter but beyond. Is today's G7 action a game changer?

    I'm not sure - are the signs from the US and elsewhere indicating a significant economic slowdown or are we seeing the post-pandemic fizz finally coming out and more normal conditions returning? Oil prices have eased back as have gas albeit still on the high side (and well ahead of where they were this time last year).

    In Sweden, the latest Novus poll is very good for the centre-right bloc showing them on 51.8% with the centre-left on 47.4% which would mean a decisive victory and presumably a Sweden Democrat-led Government as they would be the largest of the four parties in the centre-right bloc.

    Two strong by-election gains for Labour overnight but we'll see if the tide is running as well in a couple of weeks once the era of Truss gets under way next week (presumably) and we get to see which enlightened souls/poor sods (delete as appropriate) will be serving in her Cabinet.

    A "Ministry of all the Talents" ? I'm not entirely convinced.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,323

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,836

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    Don't ask. They will only charge us another £130k to try and justify that one too.
  • Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    It's technically legal as government departments have pretty broad powers to decide to spend money on things, and they are likely to have complied with relevant public procurement law.

    It's indefensible as a prudent use of public money, and auditors may have some things to say. But it isn't illegal.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    edited September 2
    Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    The committee is not interested in his PM-ship, but rather his parliamentarian-ship.

    His official capacity is neither here nor there.

    This looks to me like an improper use of public funds, and he should be sued for recovery of the monies by the next government.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,334

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Or more exactly, the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-EU days.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why didn't anyone tell him he couldn't use taxpayers money for legal advice about his personal conduct? Who do these people think they are?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,836

    Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    The committee is not interested in his PM-ship, but rather his parliamentarian-ship.

    His official capacity is neither here nor there.

    This looks to me like an improper use of public funds, and he should be sued for recovery of the monies by the next government.
    Of course I agree. I was trying to be satirical, but it's completely beyond satire.
  • The only one that makes sense is rail.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    Perhaps we could seek Lord Pannick’s opinion ?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,411
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/

    Who wants royal mail renationalised as far as I can see all it delivers is junk mail. Do people even use the post anymore
  • Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    I was simply letting my hair down by telling a few lies at a work event after an exceptionally busy week as PM. It never occurred to me that anyone would see it as a social occassion where I was lying for pleasure in a personal capacity.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017
    edited September 2
    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    U.K. industry committed suicide.

    There was an interesting book written by one of the people who tried to save the ship building industry. He went round trying to get them contracts. Their response - if it means changing working practises and methods, we are not interested.

    I worked with the tanker Captain who did the sea trials for the last products of one yard. Three small tankers built with a big audits from the government. A few miles out to sea, he and the engineers agreed - they went back, that ship and the others were used as storage. After being strengthened. the government essentially paid off he oil company with some tax breaks to buy tankers from a foreign yard….

    The pattern was repeated, with some exceptions, across industry. British exceptionalism ruled (even in Scotland)… they literally couldn’t believe that British products and engineering could be beaten. Which hey were, on quality and price.

    Every few years a bung from the government would keep them going for a bit. And so they staggered on.
  • Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why didn't anyone tell him he couldn't use taxpayers money for legal advice about his personal conduct? Who do these people think they are?
    How do you know nobody advised him that? It isn't unheard of for a boss to say, "Thanks muchly for your sage advice. Now f*** off because I'm doing it anyway".
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,962

    The only one that makes sense is rail.

    The franchises (including Transport for London) are effectively State-owned as it is only Government money keeping them solvent. I see the Avanti West Coast boss has quit - Mrs Stodge and I travelled to the Lake District on one of his trains (and back on another) at the beginning of August and it wasn't unpleasant but there was so much which could have been done to improve the customer experience.

    I was also struck by the fact our tickets were never checked at any point on either journey - I wonder what their level of fare evasion is. Fare evasion is endemic in parts of the London Underground but the idea of arresting evaders and either fining them or flogging them seems to be out of favour.

    I accept public flogging of fare evaders may be a shade draconian but it would certainly mark a step change between the Truss Government and previous namby-pamby wishy-wishy snowflake cancel culture so-called Conservative administrations. We can't expect a weak criminal-loving liberal like Patel to bring in some serious measures to improve law and order, can we?
  • The only one that makes sense is rail.

    So if you don't mind me asking, what's the difference between CHB3, CHB2, and CHB?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why didn't anyone tell him he couldn't use taxpayers money for legal advice about his personal conduct? Who do these people think they are?
    They explained that at the election. These are the people who will save us from an unaccountable, metropolitan, self interested and privileged elite.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017
    DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,836

    Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    I was simply letting my hair down by telling a few lies at a work event after an exceptionally busy week as PM. It never occurred to me that anyone would see it as a social occassion where I was lying for pleasure in a personal capacity.
    I suppose it's a fitting way for the lying crook to round off his premiership.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/

    Who wants royal mail renationalised as far as I can see all it delivers is junk mail. Do people even use the post anymore
    Plenty use it still, especially for parcels and it was used extensively in the lockdown. If you live in rural areas RM is the only postal delivery service which provides a universal service at the same price, urban or rural
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    U.K. industry committed suicide.

    There was an interesting book written by one of the people who tried to save the ship building industry. He went round trying to get them contracts. Their response - if it means changing working practises and methods, we are not interested.

    I worked with the tanker Captain who did the sea trials for the last products of one yard. Three small tankers built with a big audits from the government. A few miles out to sea, he and the engineers agreed - they went back, that ship and the others were used as storage. After being strengthened. the government essentially paid off he oil company with some tax breaks to buy tankers from a foreign yard….

    The pattern was repeated, with some exceptions, across industry. British exceptionalism ruled (even in Scotland)… they literally couldn’t believe that British products and engineering could be beaten. Which hey were, on quality and price.

    Every few years a bung from the government would keep them going for a bit. And so they staggered on.
    I didn't say *who* destroyed industry, to be fair. And an interesting contrast in responses ...
  • DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    Best case I ever worked on.

    Two former business partners fell out big time, director 1 accused director 2 of misusing company funds by making payments which weren't to mandate, for which director 1 also brought legal action against the bank.

    I reckon the disputed payments were about £200,000 of which about £35k were to director 1's companies, the rest were legitimate payments such as to the inland revenue/customs & excise, payroll etc but most were not to mandate.

    Both directors were determined not to lose the case, we were advising director 2 and I reckon the costs involved each director was north of £400,000 in both legal and accountancy services.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/

    Who wants royal mail renationalised as far as I can see all it delivers is junk mail. Do people even use the post anymore
    Plenty use it still, especially for parcels and it was used extensively in the lockdown. If you live in rural areas RM is the only postal delivery service which provides a universal service at the same price, urban or rural
    Quite. I had about 8 items* in the post this morning, admittedly partly cos there was a strike yesterday. But it's unusual for me to have nothing at all.

    *plus one bit of spam
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Starmer is, unlike Liz Truss, not going to provide too many hostages to fortune so far out from a GE with a huge amount of uncertainty not only through this winter but beyond. Is today's G7 action a game changer?

    I'm not sure - are the signs from the US and elsewhere indicating a significant economic slowdown or are we seeing the post-pandemic fizz finally coming out and more normal conditions returning? Oil prices have eased back as have gas albeit still on the high side (and well ahead of where they were this time last year).

    In Sweden, the latest Novus poll is very good for the centre-right bloc showing them on 51.8% with the centre-left on 47.4% which would mean a decisive victory and presumably a Sweden Democrat-led Government as they would be the largest of the four parties in the centre-right bloc.

    Two strong by-election gains for Labour overnight but we'll see if the tide is running as well in a couple of weeks once the era of Truss gets under way next week (presumably) and we get to see which enlightened souls/poor sods (delete as appropriate) will be serving in her Cabinet.

    A "Ministry of all the Talents" ? I'm not entirely convinced.

    If true it means that a hard right, Nationalist party will be the largest in both Italy and Sweden after elections this month.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    edited September 2

    The only one that makes sense is rail.

    So if you don't mind me asking, what's the difference between CHB3, CHB2, and CHB?
    Think of it like the World Wars. The first was bad but we coped, the second was grim but we survived but the third will be the worst.

    Edit: sorry CHB3 that was meant tongue in cheek.
  • Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    The committee is not interested in his PM-ship, but rather his parliamentarian-ship.

    His official capacity is neither here nor there.

    This looks to me like an improper use of public funds, and he should be sued for recovery of the monies by the next government.
    I see why you're angry, but there really isn't a legal route for that to happen.

    Johnson didn't personally steal from the petty cash. What happened is that the Cabinet Office made a really stupid decision about what to spend money on. If proper procedures weren't followed, then individual civil servants who signed it off could have disciplinary issues to contend with. Auditors might criticise the controls in place. The Treasury might even say they spent outside agreed delegations. But, ultimately, Johnson will be long gone and there's no legal claim that can realistically be made against him. Indeed, even pursuing it would in itself be throwing away even more public money.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/

    Who wants royal mail renationalised as far as I can see all it delivers is junk mail. Do people even use the post anymore
    Nationalisation only ever benefits the employees of said industries and their union representatives. Nationalisation is free pass for those that think it is perfectly OK to give shit service to consumers. And yes, I know many private companies also give shit service, but they normally adapt or go out of business. What incentive is there for the company run by the bureaucrat? And why does anyone with half a brain think that politicians and civil servants know how to run companies?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.
    Captain Tom was a world-class grifter.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Starmer is, unlike Liz Truss, not going to provide too many hostages to fortune so far out from a GE with a huge amount of uncertainty not only through this winter but beyond. Is today's G7 action a game changer?

    I'm not sure - are the signs from the US and elsewhere indicating a significant economic slowdown or are we seeing the post-pandemic fizz finally coming out and more normal conditions returning? Oil prices have eased back as have gas albeit still on the high side (and well ahead of where they were this time last year).

    In Sweden, the latest Novus poll is very good for the centre-right bloc showing them on 51.8% with the centre-left on 47.4% which would mean a decisive victory and presumably a Sweden Democrat-led Government as they would be the largest of the four parties in the centre-right bloc.

    Two strong by-election gains for Labour overnight but we'll see if the tide is running as well in a couple of weeks once the era of Truss gets under way next week (presumably) and we get to see which enlightened souls/poor sods (delete as appropriate) will be serving in her Cabinet.

    A "Ministry of all the Talents" ? I'm not entirely convinced.

    If true it means that a hard right, Nationalist party will be the largest in both Italy and Sweden after elections this month.
    And of course in Westminster too already.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Pagan2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer has already committed Labour to rail renationalisation effectively anyway and keeping rail mainly in state hands.

    If Labour has a majority at the next general election and does not need LD support to get legislation through then he may well renationalise energy and water companies and Royal Mail too
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20579678.keir-starmer-commits-labour-rail-nationalisation/

    Who wants royal mail renationalised as far as I can see all it delivers is junk mail. Do people even use the post anymore
    Nationalisation only ever benefits the employees of said industries and their union representatives. Nationalisation is free pass for those that think it is perfectly OK to give shit service to consumers. And yes, I know many private companies also give shit service, but they normally adapt or go out of business. What incentive is there for the company run by the bureaucrat? And why does anyone with half a brain think that politicians and civil servants know how to run companies?
    I can tell you that GNER improved considerably for being nationalised.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.
    Of course British Industry isn't destroyed, though our export markets in Europe haven't been helped. Don't forget that we need growth of GDP and we won't get that from making things and selling them to ourselves.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.
    Of course British Industry isn't destroyed, though our export markets in Europe haven't been helped. Don't forget that we need growth of GDP and we won't get that from making things and selling them to ourselves.
    TBF my comment implied, but did not make clear, an emphasis on heavy industry, or at least the kind that uses lots of water.
  • Have to be honest, I'm not as enraged by the Pannick advice (and the cost to the taxpayer therein) as I am by the Winsor report on the Cressida Dick ousting.

    That report is utter bollocks and the author and the Home Secretary seem oblivious to the fact it was the same ruse that one Boris Johnson used to oust Ian Blair.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    edited September 2

    DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.

    Captain Tom was a world-class grifter.
    Not as bad as Major Tom with the most unbelievable life insurance scam ever - “my spaceship went wrong and I died”. Really…

  • DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.
    Captain Tom was a world-class grifter.
    His family certainly seem to be.

    I know a few charities, and the first few years are grim as they spend a lot of money to get themselves donations, but the Sir Tom Moore foundation was taking the absolute fucking piss.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    It is not fully clear to my how and why Britain lost industrial puissance in shipbuilding, aeronutical engineering, and auto manufacture.

    The traditional explanations (blame the unions, blame management) don’t really satisfy me.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    edited September 2

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.
    Of course British Industry isn't destroyed, though our export markets in Europe haven't been helped. Don't forget that we need growth of GDP and we won't get that from making things and selling them to ourselves.
    I don't know what you mean by that last statement. A product sold on the domestic market, displacing an import, is every bit as valuable to the economy as a product exported.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,296
    Is it just me or is there an infestation of these "couldn't make it up stories" as the Ancien Regime expires?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/02/officer-who-wrote-mets-drug-strategy-smoked-cannabis-daily-panel-told
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537

    DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.
    Captain Tom was a world-class grifter.
    His family certainly seem to be.

    I know a few charities, and the first few years are grim as they spend a lot of money to get themselves donations, but the Sir Tom Moore foundation was taking the absolute fucking piss.
    Currently subject to a fully-fledged inquiry by the Charities Commission.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,537
    boulay said:

    DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    You don’t ask for it.

    Something I realised too late in life. Just because your business plan is outrageous, insane or downright immoral… the more of those qualities it has, the more it will work.

    I’m thinking of some acquaintances who lived a “his and hers Range Rovers parked on the drive of nice Georgian” lifestyle, based on a charity that did no actual charitable work.

    Captain Tom was a world-class grifter.
    Not as bad as Major Tom with the most unbelievable life insurance scam ever - “my spaceship went wrong and I died”. Really…

    He was a junkie to boot.
  • DougSeal said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    Why can’t I get work like this?
    Best case I ever worked on.

    Two former business partners fell out big time, director 1 accused director 2 of misusing company funds by making payments which weren't to mandate, for which director 1 also brought legal action against the bank.

    I reckon the disputed payments were about £200,000 of which about £35k were to director 1's companies, the rest were legitimate payments such as to the inland revenue/customs & excise, payroll etc but most were not to mandate.

    Both directors were determined not to lose the case, we were advising director 2 and I reckon the costs involved each director was north of £400,000 in both legal and accountancy services.
    The best advice is never go to court on a point of principle. You don't really win the principle, and people seldom apologise. If you win you essentially get some cash (or cash equivalent). If you lose you lose some cash. So make a judgment based on expected quantum and probabilities.

    Yet people go to court on principle all the time and lawyers coin it in.

    The all time classic was Jennens v Jennens (or the "Acton Miser"). One of the wealthiest (if not wealthiest) non-titled men in England dies intestate with £2m assets in 1798. The case is discontinued 117 years later because the entire estate has been exhausted by legal fees (oh, and literally everyone involved is long dead). They say it inspired Bleak House, although there was quite a bit of similar stuff going on and the case wasn't even halfway through when it was published.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,913
    edited September 2
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Starmer is, unlike Liz Truss, not going to provide too many hostages to fortune so far out from a GE with a huge amount of uncertainty not only through this winter but beyond. Is today's G7 action a game changer?

    I'm not sure - are the signs from the US and elsewhere indicating a significant economic slowdown or are we seeing the post-pandemic fizz finally coming out and more normal conditions returning? Oil prices have eased back as have gas albeit still on the high side (and well ahead of where they were this time last year).

    In Sweden, the latest Novus poll is very good for the centre-right bloc showing them on 51.8% with the centre-left on 47.4% which would mean a decisive victory and presumably a Sweden Democrat-led Government as they would be the largest of the four parties in the centre-right bloc.

    Two strong by-election gains for Labour overnight but we'll see if the tide is running as well in a couple of weeks once the era of Truss gets under way next week (presumably) and we get to see which enlightened souls/poor sods (delete as appropriate) will be serving in her Cabinet.

    A "Ministry of all the Talents" ? I'm not entirely convinced.

    If true it means that a hard right, Nationalist party will be the largest in both Italy and Sweden after elections this month.
    And of course in Westminster too already.
    The Sweden Democrats and Brothers of Italy are closer to Farage than Boris and Truss, the former arguably even further right
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    dixiedean said:

    Is it just me or is there an infestation of these "couldn't make it up stories" as the Ancien Regime expires?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/02/officer-who-wrote-mets-drug-strategy-smoked-cannabis-daily-panel-told

    It seems all sorts of nastiness has been festering away under Dick.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Hmm, more to the story than that. Including the destruction of UK industry. Not much pollution from a wunch of bankers, though one really has to worry about the cocaine in the drinking water downstream of Canary Wharf. It must be quite a lively time amongst the oyster beds of the Thames estuary when the tide ebbs.
    It is nonsense to say there was ever a destruction of British industry. This is a lefty myth. On the most recent data we are 8th in the world in terms of manufacturing output.
    Of course British Industry isn't destroyed, though our export markets in Europe haven't been helped. Don't forget that we need growth of GDP and we won't get that from making things and selling them to ourselves.
    TBF my comment implied, but did not make clear, an emphasis on heavy industry, or at least the kind that uses lots of water.
    ok, apologies
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819

    It is not fully clear to my how and why Britain lost industrial puissance in shipbuilding, aeronutical engineering, and auto manufacture.

    The traditional explanations (blame the unions, blame management) don’t really satisfy me.

    The problem was when hoi polloi got a voice. In the good old days everything was owned and run by proper chaps who understood that their uninterrupted pursuit of wealth was paramount and so would ensure that shipyards were profitable and productive by ensuring the staff were just alive enough to work.

    They didn’t have to worry about sharing the profits so could be focussed. Absolutely focussed.

    Think of the returns from the slave trade for example - it helped build an empire until average punters started demanding input.

    The country just became too nice. Look at China - booming.

    Luckily JRM is on his way to lead us to sunlit uplands (assuming he gets ennobled otherwise he’s going to be one of the lumpenproletariat which would be awful).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,296
    New thread.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017

    It is not fully clear to my how and why Britain lost industrial puissance in shipbuilding, aeronutical engineering, and auto manufacture.

    The traditional explanations (blame the unions, blame management) don’t really satisfy me.

    It was both together. No one wanted or accepted change.

    The problems were evident before WWI.

    When Jellicoe wanted built up guns for the battleships, rather than wire wound, he was told no by the gun makers. Because they had their process, the unions would get upset and it would all be inconvenient.

    When, some years later, Denny designed the first U.K. longitudinally framed destroyer, a delegation from the unions and management of the shipyards asked for him to be fired. Since they had a nice business building transverse framed ships.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017

    dixiedean said:

    Is it just me or is there an infestation of these "couldn't make it up stories" as the Ancien Regime expires?

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/02/officer-who-wrote-mets-drug-strategy-smoked-cannabis-daily-panel-told

    It seems all sorts of nastiness has been festering away under Dick.
    Could be worse. The East Midlands Serious Crime squad comes to mind…

  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 553
    dixiedean said:

    New thread.

    That's quick, I was going to wade into the counterfactuals on superpowers in the previous thread, only to find we have a new, new thread!

    Having a summary glance at the topic, two threads ago, it strikes me that the USA would never become a superpower within the Empire. Empires are a terrible way to develop a place economically (India, I believe, did not develop much during the Raj). As for the UK remaining a Superpower, by the end of WWII Empires were already anachronisms. I disagree with Kinbalu in the previous thread, that the UK could have retained superpower status by being as brutal as the PRC, because I think if the UK had displayed such brutality they would have lost it anyway.
  • ClippP said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Or more exactly, the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-EU days.
    No, exactly what I said, pre-privatisation days.

    Pre-privatisation the nationalised water firms routinely flouted existing rules but there was no real sanction on them for that.

    Post-privatisation the rules were actually enforced because firms could be fined if they flouted the rules as they had done in the past which would harm the firms profits, so pollution became a cost that they worked to avoid.

    Putting a high cost onto pollution means that firms in a private sector avoid polluting in order to reduce their costs, the profit motive works there, whereas if its a state sector and targets aren't met there's no incentive to avoid that. It just becomes a political game of pass the parcel rather than anyone taking responsibility.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,984

    ClippP said:

    Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    I hope we don't get back to the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-privatisation levels.

    Privatisation worked, but many people know no alternative.

    Or more exactly, the polluted waterways and beaches of pre-EU days.
    No, exactly what I said, pre-privatisation days.

    Pre-privatisation the nationalised water firms routinely flouted existing rules but there was no real sanction on them for that.

    Post-privatisation the rules were actually enforced because firms could be fined if they flouted the rules as they had done in the past which would harm the firms profits, so pollution became a cost that they worked to avoid.

    Putting a high cost onto pollution means that firms in a private sector avoid polluting in order to reduce their costs, the profit motive works there, whereas if its a state sector and targets aren't met there's no incentive to avoid that. It just becomes a political game of pass the parcel rather than anyone taking responsibility.
    HMG fining itself: "Oh no! Anyway..."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,107

    It is not fully clear to my how and why Britain lost industrial puissance in shipbuilding, aeronutical engineering, and auto manufacture.

    The traditional explanations (blame the unions, blame management) don’t really satisfy me.

    We're still world-class at all of those things, just at high-end rather than mass market.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,990

    Chris said:

    Is this as open+shut and bad as it's being presented?

    Exc: Taxpayers are footing the bill for Pannick’s legal advice disparaging the Partygate probe by privileges committee.

    £129,700 contract for “legal advice” awarded last month and published today.

    It went to Peters and Peters - who instructed Pannick.

    contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/26bfbb0…


    https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1565761214206156807?t=Id2f6ZIclrN9bawuhjRdvA&s=19

    How is this even legal?
    I suppose it could be argued that as he misled parliament in an official capacity ...
    The committee is not interested in his PM-ship, but rather his parliamentarian-ship.

    His official capacity is neither here nor there.

    This looks to me like an improper use of public funds, and he should be sued for recovery of the monies by the next government.
    I see why you're angry, but there really isn't a legal route for that to happen.

    Johnson didn't personally steal from the petty cash. What happened is that the Cabinet Office made a really stupid decision about what to spend money on. If proper procedures weren't followed, then individual civil servants who signed it off could have disciplinary issues to contend with. Auditors might criticise the controls in place. The Treasury might even say they spent outside agreed delegations. But, ultimately, Johnson will be long gone and there's no legal claim that can realistically be made against him. Indeed, even pursuing it would in itself be throwing away even more public money.
    You could certainly argue that Cabinet Office were acting ultra vires in seeking such an opinion.
    Article 9 of the Bill of Rights clearly states that “… the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament…”

    There’s no way to bring a case to recover the money from Johnson, but Parliament should find whoever authorised this in contempt of Parliament.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,346

    Looks like Fox is ditching Trump.

    Quite the thread, honestly you'd expect this discourse on CNN.

    https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1565749664422498305

    It's always been fairly obvious Fox Top Brass (Lachlan Murdoch etc) detest Trump but find it hard to disengage due to competitors on the right and because he is VERY popular amongst their viewers. So they've been locked into this weird public fawning, private loathing.

    Interesting, though, that they possibly sense blood in the water and some chance to break free. And very good news for Ron DeSantis if they can.
    What would the odds be on

    1) De Santis losing this November

    and then

    2) Winning the GOP nomination for 2024?
    Incredibly long, and not very attractive at any price I suspect.

    Firstly, he's very unlikely to lose in November as, although polls have picked up for Democrats, it's still a midterm, in it's a reddish-purple state Trump won by 3.5% in 2020.

    Secondly, because he's unlikely to lose, if he did it'd be a big shock and very damaging to his brand. He can't then claim to be a popular, campaigning conservative, or a winner... he'd have lost an election that people thought was pretty much in the bag. So the unlikely event of the first happening makes the second really unlikely.

    I know Nixon won a Presidential election after losing a Gubernatorial election in bruising fashion. But that was six years earlier, and he was up against an incumbent so his loss was disappointing (and the margin a bit surprising at the time) but not a total bolt from the blue.
    Don’t forget Charlie Crist is a former GOP so should be well placed to appeal to moderate republicans and independents
This discussion has been closed.