Howdy, Stranger!

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

A 10% return in two days and a 120% return in two days? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,065
edited 6:08AM in General
imageA 10% return in two days and a 120% return in two days? – politicalbetting.com

With Tory MPs voting tomorrow and Wednesday in the leadership election I think a 10% return in two days on Jenrick may appeal to some but I think if Jenrick tries to engineer it that Tugendhat is his oppoent then that 12/1 is stonking value.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,554
    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,398
    Jenrick will want every vote that he can get so that he can go to the membership as the clear choice of the MPs. It would be a disaster for him if mucking about cost him first place. I will be genuinely astonished if Tugendhat is not the next to go.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,283
    I can't read it. 12/1 on Tugendhat making the final two is probably value, it's not that unlikely, but it's more likely either Cleverly or Badenoch do.

    Not sure how I'd price it. 25% shot whereas either Badenoch or Cleverly are 75%?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,927
    edited 6:32AM

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    Makes it difficult to poll if the supporters of one side risk violence if they identify themselves.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,588

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Poor decision to appoint in the first place.... there are questions about Starmer that will not go away. Eg 3 grand for a pair of specs that look dreaful is just your starter for 10
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,894

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,609
    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,894
    edited 6:41AM
    DavidL said:

    Jenrick will want every vote that he can get so that he can go to the membership as the clear choice of the MPs. It would be a disaster for him if mucking about cost him first place. I will be genuinely astonished if Tugendhat is not the next to go.

    Yes, I think there will be very little gamesmanship. Jenrick vs Cleverly for the members ballot.

    A better bet than 11/8 on Badenoch to make the final two is Badenoch to win at 9/2 at Ladbrokes. If she makes the final 2 then she wins.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 308
    DavidL said:

    Jenrick will want every vote that he can get so that he can go to the membership as the clear choice of the MPs. It would be a disaster for him if mucking about cost him first place. I will be genuinely astonished if Tugendhat is not the next to go.

    Unless there are significant tactical votes out there already then the MPs divide 61 - 58. So if it was available, TT to go next and Cleverly to top final vote would be my bet.
    I expect there'll be a lot of votes that shift though
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,894

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    I think the divided office was becoming a big distraction, I expect fresh energy in the "change" agenda.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    edited 6:51AM

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,675

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    It would be silly to pretend that it wasn't.

    But I think it's plausible to say that the Starmer misfires have been political, which is consistent with having a PM who isn't a natural politician and a CoS with the same imbalance of strengths and weaknesses.

    Resolving things in favour of McSweeney (who clearly can get things done politically) makes sense, as does starting again with the Comms team. Better to not have to do that, but better to do it than not.

    I'm reminded of something Bill Hartston said when he was on telly as Mr Chess and not on Gogglebox.

    One of the things about good players is that, when they blunder, they somehow manage to get compensation for it.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,181
    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    After 14 years it was clear no improvement was possible in the Tory organisation. In contrast, despite it's shaky start, I do expect to see some improvement in how Labour govern with time - they are a cub government and Starmer clearly learnt how to do LOTO as he went along. Whether the improvement will be enough to go into the next election with semi-decent ratings, I'm not entirely confident, but I do expect them to put up a good fight at getting there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,927

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    It would be silly to pretend that it wasn't.

    But I think it's plausible to say that the Starmer misfires have been political, which is consistent with having a PM who isn't a natural politician and a CoS with the same imbalance of strengths and weaknesses.

    Resolving things in favour of McSweeney (who clearly can get things done politically) makes sense, as does starting again with the Comms team. Better to not have to do that, but better to do it than not.

    I'm reminded of something Bill Hartston said when he was on telly as Mr Chess and not on Gogglebox.

    One of the things about good players is that, when they blunder, they somehow manage to get compensation for it.
    Your analysis suggsts that one of the PM and the CotE might need to be replaced.

    Which is bad news for the CotE. If her Budget is poorly received, she will become the lightning rod.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,588

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    It would be silly to pretend that it wasn't.

    But I think it's plausible to say that the Starmer misfires have been political, which is consistent with having a PM who isn't a natural politician and a CoS with the same imbalance of strengths and weaknesses.

    Resolving things in favour of McSweeney (who clearly can get things done politically) makes sense, as does starting again with the Comms team. Better to not have to do that, but better to do it than not.

    I'm reminded of something Bill Hartston said when he was on telly as Mr Chess and not on Gogglebox.

    One of the things about good players is that, when they blunder, they somehow manage to get compensation for it.
    Your analysis suggsts that one of the PM and the CotE might need to be replaced.

    Which is bad news for the CotE. If her Budget is poorly received, she will become the lightning rod.
    Chances of it being well received after the lie about the black hole is minimal.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,695
    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    That story is an utter disgrace.

    Why should Northerners have to take on the problems of London/The South?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 47,894
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Yes, but Starmer has been ruthless in correcting that mistake.

    It's not good having to sack the manager so soon into the season, but far worse to persist.

    If only Leicester's owners were as ruthless!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058
    My money is on Tony Lix.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,927
    edited 7:00AM
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    Well that’s a crap first session for England, after a promising early breakthrough with the ball.

    These two batsmen look well set now, and with something of the Bazball about them on the flat pitch. Masood with seven boundaries on his way to 60no from only 58 balls. Hopefully it’s just a high scoring game, but the hosts are looking at close to 450 by the end of play unless we get quick wickets.

    16 off that penultimate over from Bashir’s bowling not a good sign, although a single let go from Leach in the final over was better.

    Lunch, Pak 122/1 25ovs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,927
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Yes, but Starmer has been ruthless in correcting that mistake.
    Time will tell whether it has worked. Has Starmer now got the dressing room back?

    Meanwhile, you've got a Forest reject.

    Heh.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    That story is an utter disgrace.

    Why should Northerners have to take on the problems of London/The South?
    My favourite example is actually from the South were Newham leased an entire office block conversion in Chatham and filled it over a weekend...

    But most of the time they do it on the quiet person by person with the council complaints ignored. I'm not sure how you fix it unless you insist on 18 years of support being paid by the old to the new one council up front..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058
    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Reportedly, there are not a few party members who are equally delusional.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    Has anyone any success in using iPad safari on the regular site? I can log in successfully using the vanilla site, but using the main site just has me going round in circles in which I’m never actually logged in.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,005
    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Big Dog won´t clean up his own mess...
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    edited 7:10AM

    Has anyone any success in using iPad safari on the regular site? I can log in successfully using the vanilla site, but using the main site just has me going round in circles in which I’m never actually logged in.

    Sandpit explains it better above and there is no granularity which will allow you to make a custom rule.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,132

    I can't read it. 12/1 on Tugendhat making the final two is probably value, it's not that unlikely, but it's more likely either Cleverly or Badenoch do.

    Not sure how I'd price it. 25% shot whereas either Badenoch or Cleverly are 75%?

    I would say odds of making the final two:
    Jenrick 90%
    Cleverly 70%
    Badenoch 20%
    Tugendhat 20%

    Odds of winning
    Jenrick 44%
    Cleverly 37%
    Badenoch 15%
    Tugendhat 5%
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527

    Has anyone any success in using iPad safari on the regular site? I can log in successfully using the vanilla site, but using the main site just has me going round in circles in which I’m never actually logged in.

    That’s to do with the default security settings around 3rd party cookies, which are there for a good reason as they stop the likes of Google and Facebook tracking you around the internet.

    Better to stick with the Vanilla site on the iPad.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,691
    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    Sandpit said:

    Has anyone any success in using iPad safari on the regular site? I can log in successfully using the vanilla site, but using the main site just has me going round in circles in which I’m never actually logged in.

    That’s to do with the default security settings around 3rd party cookies, which are there for a good reason as they stop the likes of Google and Facebook tracking you around the internet.

    Better to stick with the Vanilla site on the iPad.
    Got it. It’s the “prevent cross site tracking” option. Toggle it off and it works.. but as you said now I get cross site tracking..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Forget news operation; it's a shit policy.

    Replacing Gray with someone whose entire working life has been spent as a political operative is unlikely to make any improvement in the substance/presentation ratio.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,927

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    That story is an utter disgrace.

    Why should Northerners have to take on the problems of London/The South?
    Welcome to Levelling Up, Labour Style...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    moonshine said:

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness).

    He has already said, if he wins there will not be another vote. He intends to remain President for life and expects the Supreme Court to facilitate that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,319
    It looks like the leadership could well be decided on Wednesday. If Cleverly goes through he probably gets to the membership with Tugendhat and Badenoch preferences and on the Conhome survey might then beat Jenrick.

    If however Tugendhat gets most Stride preferences and some lent votes from Jenrick to knock out Cleverly then Jenrick is favourite again. As Jenrick almost certainly beats Tugendhat with members it would need most of Cleverly's votes to go to Badenoch to stop him
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,675
    Cicero said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Big Dog won´t clean up his own mess...
    Trouble is that a significant slice on the right are in utter denial that there's a mess to clean up.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,619
    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness).

    It is by now well established that Biden’s government has deliberately slow walked military aid and restricted the rules of engagement. Because it preferred to slowly bleed out Soviet stockpiles than risk a disorderly collapse of the Putin regime, or Putin behaving like a cornered animal. Most sober analyses conclude those Soviet stockpiles will be exhausted some time in 2025 and regardless of who wins in Nov, Ukraine will have enough to keep defending until then. It is far from clear that there’s a fag paper of difference between Biden, Harris and Trump on what should happen next, namely a negotiated settlement, almost certainly involving a permanent change in borders. If anyone in power in the US is credibly talking about an amphibious assault of Crimea and a combined arms attempt routing on the Donbas I have missed it. Further, there have not been leaks from Trump’s meeting with Zelensky indicating that the US election is life or death for Ukraine. It might well be that Trump expropriates frozen Russian assets to fund continued military aid, potentially even at an increased level to really boost the stocks of U.S. defence companies. He is after all a Republican.

    In case you’d missed it, the world is already having a very bad time. The reason in my view is simple, the US has ceased to provide a credible deterrence to the bad guys, because its polity is still full of self doubt after the Iraq debacle. “Red lines” in Syria, the chaotic handover to the Taliban, “it depends what sort of invasion” in 2022 etc… Europe is at at war, the Suez is more or less shut to commercial traffic, the Middle East in flames. And China is busily stockpiling energy and base metals, and gradually reducing its holdings of US Treasuries.

    And that’s without getting to the diabolical economic management of the last few years, federal deficit of 6-7% at full employment accompanied by runaway inflation.

    Trump may make some of the above better, some of it worse. But things are never as good or as bad as they seem.
    I don't see many ways Trump will make the world 'better'.

    As an example of where I think you are wrong: true, there have not been any leaks from Trump’s meeting with Zelensky indicating that the US election is life or death for Ukraine. But there have been plenty of other comments from Trump that show a disdain for Zelensky and Ukraine, and a certain 'fondness' for Putin. It would require a mahoosive backtrack from Trump to suddenly support Ukraine.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    Cicero said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Big Dog won´t clean up his own mess...
    The list of Johnson’s excuses for himself is jaw-dropping. He persuaded millions to vote for Brexit by promising myriad vague and contradictory benefits. He now admits he had no plan for what to do next. But he wasn’t to blame. No, he expected the prime minister he’d just defeated to stay on and dream up some way of making Johnson’s impossible Brexit work. Other people should deal with the tiresome practicalities and broken promises. It is the leitmotif of his life.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    That's the current problem - once the council has dumped the problem elsewhere it rapidly becomes the problem of the new local authority - and what's annoying Durham is that these people are being dumped in places even County Durham council wouldn't force someone to take.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058

    Sandpit said:

    Has anyone any success in using iPad safari on the regular site? I can log in successfully using the vanilla site, but using the main site just has me going round in circles in which I’m never actually logged in.

    That’s to do with the default security settings around 3rd party cookies, which are there for a good reason as they stop the likes of Google and Facebook tracking you around the internet.

    Better to stick with the Vanilla site on the iPad.
    Got it. It’s the “prevent cross site tracking” option. Toggle it off and it works.. but as you said now I get cross site tracking..
    I've used Vanilla exclusively for years, for just that reason.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,047
    edited 7:19AM

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,319
    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    If Trump wins in November there must be a strong chance Boris returns as Tory leader and tries to emulate his US counterpart and fellow icon of the populist right.

    Johnson would also be more likely to squeeze the Farage and Reform vote and take back Labour seats in the redwall than any of the 4 Tory leadership candidates. He would fail to regain Tory votes lost to the LDs and much of the blue wall but so would most of the 4 except Tugendhat.

    Jenrick has already said he would welcome Boris back in the parliamentary party and there are enough Boris loyalists left who would give up their seat in a by election for him even on the thinner Tory benches. Cleverly was also loyal to Boris to the end, even after Javid and Sunak had resigned.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    They might as well be paying people to dig roads with teaspoons though.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    If the carbon capture money was eventually used to fill some potholes in Islington it would be a better use of money than the current waste of money.

    I simply don't see what carbon capture is supposed to solve beyond adding additional costs...

    The money should be going on SMR or similar. But we are so late into that game that Rolls Royce have binned the UK factories for the none secret bits and those factories seem to be going to Eastern Europe who are now paying for the first few reactors...
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,751

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    Don't they pay rent to the local landlord ? At a significant discount to what they would pay in London.

    That is what is stated in a previous article in the Northern Echo

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/opinion/24566306.councils-dumping-homeless-county-durham---echo-comment/

    Ethnic cleansing/genrtification of the prosperous south while dumping their problem tenants on the poor North.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058
    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,026
    edited 7:25AM
    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning implementation of policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Starmer really needs Mandelson to explain how to manage media communications - because even I could do a better job than this current Government at media comms...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,554
    edited 7:30AM
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning implementation of policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Reminds me a bit of the issues with Chelsea or Man Utd...particularly Potter, came with reputation knew what they were doing, the changing room decided otherwise from the get go and made it clear on the pitch they were going to cause trouble. Man Utd are similar, they keep getting rid of managers, but there is clearly a culture problem.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    edited 7:30AM
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    That's the current problem - once the council has dumped the problem elsewhere it rapidly becomes the problem of the new local authority - and what's annoying Durham is that these people are being dumped in places even County Durham council wouldn't force someone to take.
    There is a wider problem also, and it is a one that only people at the bottom end of the housing market (and queue for social housing) are experiencing. The market is overwhelmed by migrants who are either directly chasing the same low cost market or indirectly by home office contracts to house illegals awaiting decisions.

    Speak to people in your local area about what happens when a rental comes up, it’s gone. And we are not just talking about the large conurbations, but small sleepy towns and provincial cities also. With local authority letting schemes (what was known as the council house list) giving priority to need. A family with three kids that has no right to work is always going to out need a local family.

    This is going to really start biting at some point and the only reason it hasn’t become a national scandal is those that will experience it are not the ‘sensibles’ and rarely really garner much sympathy in the press or politics.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,540

    I can't read it. 12/1 on Tugendhat making the final two is probably value, it's not that unlikely, but it's more likely either Cleverly or Badenoch do.

    Not sure how I'd price it. 25% shot whereas either Badenoch or Cleverly are 75%?

    I topped up at Ladbrokes at a (boosted) 35:1 only 5 days ago. I don't see that anything material has changed since then - it looked like a huge anomaly then (35:1 for anyone in a 4 horse race); and 12:1 still looks good.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,965
    edited 7:36AM
    Scott_xP said:

    Cicero said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Big Dog won´t clean up his own mess...
    The list of Johnson’s excuses for himself is jaw-dropping. He persuaded millions to vote for Brexit by promising myriad vague and contradictory benefits. He now admits he had no plan for what to do next. But he wasn’t to blame. No, he expected the prime minister he’d just defeated to stay on and dream up some way of making Johnson’s impossible Brexit work. Other people should deal with the tiresome practicalities and broken promises. It is the leitmotif of his life.
    IMO it was an entirely reasonable expectation that the PM who set up the referendum would have staff plan ahead for the possibility of a result he personally did not want. It was a dereliction of duty that he didn't.

    ETA good morning, everyone.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,691

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    The woman was from Hillingdon which was her home area and Hillingdon Council provided emergency accommodation (as they are legally obliged) but that accommodation isn't cost free to the Council and it's that emergency provision which is financially hurting Hillingdon, Newham and other authorities,

    Even if she and her baby go to County Durham, Hillingdon will have to pay some support costs but, as you infer, the "cost" then ends up with County Durham who have to find accommodation but it's cheaper accommodation and I suspect there are transfer payments between the two authorities in the background to alleviate Durham's costs.

    Somebody somewhere has to pony up the accommodation costs for the homeless and the distorted housing market has alleviated the problem. For a single homeless man, the options are even more limited and the number of rough sleepers even in my part of London bears testament to this.

    It's a huge multi-faceted problem which won't be solved by building more homes unless the economics of housebuilding are deliberately changed to enable the word "affordable" to have some serious meaning for those right at the bottom of the housing ladder (and that includes those priced out of their home area by second or even third home owners).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,283
    Cookie said:

    I can't read it. 12/1 on Tugendhat making the final two is probably value, it's not that unlikely, but it's more likely either Cleverly or Badenoch do.

    Not sure how I'd price it. 25% shot whereas either Badenoch or Cleverly are 75%?

    I would say odds of making the final two:
    Jenrick 90%
    Cleverly 70%
    Badenoch 20%
    Tugendhat 20%

    Odds of winning
    Jenrick 44%
    Cleverly 37%
    Badenoch 15%
    Tugendhat 5%
    I think Cleveleys and Badenoch are a tad too far apart on that spread, but good calcs.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Starmer really needs Mandelson to explain how to manage media communications - because even I could do a better job than this current Government at media comms...
    It’s a more difficult job now than it was back in 1997, mostly thanks to the entire Lobby spending 16 hours a day on Twitter, but Starmer absolutely needs to find both someone who can set the daily agenda from within government, and someone who can be “Minister for the Today Programme” - even if they’re otherwise scumbags like Blair had with Campbell and Mandleson.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,047
    edited 7:33AM
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    If the carbon capture money was eventually used to fill some potholes in Islington it would be a better use of money than the current waste of money.

    I simply don't see what carbon capture is supposed to solve beyond adding additional costs...

    The money should be going on SMR or similar. But we are so late into that game that Rolls Royce have binned the UK factories for the none secret bits and those factories seem to be going to Eastern Europe who are now paying for the first few reactors...
    Yes, that's true. But my point is that if the payments are conditional, they likely won't be made and the cash will go to patching up public services rather than making the kind of investment that drives growth, reduces costs and solves geographical imbalances.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,512
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Starmer really needs Mandelson to explain how to manage media communications - because even I could do a better job than this current Government at media comms...
    It’s a more difficult job now than it was back in 1997, mostly thanks to the entire Lobby spending 16 hours a day on Twitter, but Starmer absolutely needs to find both someone who can set the daily agenda from within government, and someone who can be “Minister for the Today Programme” - even if they’re otherwise scumbags like Blair had with Campbell and Mandleson.
    Get Blair and Mandelson back in to run things.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    AnneJGP said:

    IMO it was an entirely reasonable expectation that the PM who set up the referendum would have staff plan ahead for the possibility of a result he personally did not want. It was a dereliction of duty that he didn't.

    Nope

    A PM who campaigned against it and explained at length why it would be a bad idea could not reasonably be expected to deliver it.

    The public didn't have faith in his arguments. It is not reasonable to assume they had faith in his actions.

    The inevitable failures would have been blamed on Cameron's lack of appetite for the project, and not the fact it's inherently shit.

    Of all the mistakes Cameron made with regard to Brexit, resigning was not one of them.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    edited 7:36AM
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    The woman was from Hillingdon which was her home area and Hillingdon Council provided emergency accommodation (as they are legally obliged) but that accommodation isn't cost free to the Council and it's that emergency provision which is financially hurting Hillingdon, Newham and other authorities,

    Even if she and her baby go to County Durham, Hillingdon will have to pay some support costs but, as you infer, the "cost" then ends up with County Durham who have to find accommodation but it's cheaper accommodation and I suspect there are transfer payments between the two authorities in the background to alleviate Durham's costs.

    You suspect incorrectly - there are no transfer payments - but there should be and they should be paid in full upfront until any children have left school.

    Having to find £150,000+ before a council dumps a family 250 miles north would focus council minds because at the moment they are creating real problems for northern councils by dumping people in villages with no communication links...
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,047
    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,554
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Starmer really needs Mandelson to explain how to manage media communications - because even I could do a better job than this current Government at media comms...
    It’s a more difficult job now than it was back in 1997, mostly thanks to the entire Lobby spending 16 hours a day on Twitter, but Starmer absolutely needs to find both someone who can set the daily agenda from within government, and someone who can be “Minister for the Today Programme” - even if they’re otherwise scumbags like Blair had with Campbell and Mandleson.
    Its also even harder now because with twitter nerds and ChatGPT, you can start to fact check stuff really quickly. So the MO of go on Today programme, talk some bollocks that throw off the interviewer and that will put out the fire isn't going to work.

    But it has been reported that unlike Bad Al / Mandy, current lot don't really do weekends / after hours, so the stories gain momentum before crisis management kicks in.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,547
    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,554
    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,675
    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Cicero said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The psychodrama around Sue Gray is as nothing to the one that will engulf the Tories unless the new leader kills the monster lurking in the wings...

    not if Boris Johnson can help it. It’s clear that his memoir, Unleashed, out this week, is primarily intended not as a historical account but as deliberate myth-making. His motivation for picking up his pen is often assumed to be Churchill’s: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” Johnson’s interest is far more immediate. It’s whether he can lever a misleading version of his past into an eventual comeback.

    There were two stunning moments on air that revealed just how power-hungry Johnson is. Bradby asked who he preferred as US president, Harris or Trump? Johnson replied pompously that “the job of a UK premier is to be on the best possible terms with both”. An astonished Bradby said: “But you’re not the premier!” Johnson’s face fell and he lapsed into incoherent mumbling: “Yeah, yeah, I know, but…”

    The second was when Bradby asked who he’d prefer as Tory leader. Johnson, who’d been watching with narrowed eyes and wolfish grin, momentarily lost control. His face contorted, his cheeks ballooned and he blew a raspberry. He could not disguise his contempt. His verbal recovery was quick — “four good candidates…” — but nobody could fail to grasp how Johnson will view the next leader. In his imagination he’s still the rightful prime minister. They’ll be a rival to destroy.


    https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/new-tory-leader-must-finally-bury-boris-rrjbwdpmb

    Big Dog won´t clean up his own mess...
    The list of Johnson’s excuses for himself is jaw-dropping. He persuaded millions to vote for Brexit by promising myriad vague and contradictory benefits. He now admits he had no plan for what to do next. But he wasn’t to blame. No, he expected the prime minister he’d just defeated to stay on and dream up some way of making Johnson’s impossible Brexit work. Other people should deal with the tiresome practicalities and broken promises. It is the leitmotif of his life.
    IMO it was an entirely reasonable expectation that the PM who set up the referendum would have staff plan ahead for the possibility of a result he personally did not want. It was a dereliction of duty that he didn't.
    Yes, though the time between launching that plan and the first "this is a betrayal of 17.4 million votes" would have been measured in seconds.

    Dave and Boris both failed to have a plan. Part of that was for dishonourable reasons. But part of it was because the 'cake and eat it', 'no downsides' thing that many people seemed to have in mind was not a thing that could be planned for, due to its inherent contradictions.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,557
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    If the carbon capture money was eventually used to fill some potholes in Islington it would be a better use of money than the current waste of money.

    I simply don't see what carbon capture is supposed to solve beyond adding additional costs...

    The money should be going on SMR or similar. But we are so late into that game that Rolls Royce have binned the UK factories for the none secret bits and those factories seem to be going to Eastern Europe who are now paying for the first few reactors...
    IIUC what carbon capture is supposed to achieve is that if you're trying to get to net zero, you need to either replace everything that currently emits CO2, find a way to either stop putting some of it into the atmosphere, or actively remove some of it.

    The problem is that some activities like cement or glass production emit CO2 even if you run them 100% on renewable energy. Then there are other things like aviation where the cost of not using fossil fuels looks like it'll be really high.

    So if you're serious about doing net zero, and you're not going for radical degrowth or something like that, you need carbon capture.

    However the other problem is that the current tech to do it doesn't work very well. With solar and wind and battery tech governments threw a lot of subsidies at people building them for a while then they ultimately made them really good and we could scale them up really big. Hopefully this will also happen with carbon capture, but we don't know. So the dilemma is that you can spend the money on solar and wind (or stuff like insulation) and in the short term it'll definitely be more effective than spending it on carbon capture, but then you're leaving part of the problem of getting to net zero totally unsolved.

    My take is that places that the places on the planet with the most relevant expertise should be building this stuff. If it works then the rest of the world can use it and it'll have a big impact. I don't know whether Britain is one of those places or not.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,965
    Scott_xP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    IMO it was an entirely reasonable expectation that the PM who set up the referendum would have staff plan ahead for the possibility of a result he personally did not want. It was a dereliction of duty that he didn't.

    Nope

    A PM who campaigned against it and explained at length why it would be a bad idea could not reasonably be expected to deliver it.

    The public didn't have faith in his arguments. It is not reasonable to assume they had faith in his actions.

    The inevitable failures would have been blamed on Cameron's lack of appetite for the project, and not the fact it's inherently shit.

    Of all the mistakes Cameron made with regard to Brexit, resigning was not one of them.
    You are right about the resignation but CS staff are supposed to be neutral. There should have been a contingency plan in place, for whoever took over as PM.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,512
    HYUFD said:

    It looks like the leadership could well be decided on Wednesday. If Cleverly goes through he probably gets to the membership with Tugendhat and Badenoch preferences and on the Conhome survey might then beat Jenrick.

    If however Tugendhat gets most Stride preferences and some lent votes from Jenrick to knock out Cleverly then Jenrick is favourite again. As Jenrick almost certainly beats Tugendhat with members it would need most of Cleverly's votes to go to Badenoch to stop him

    Badenoch still has a good chance of winning the contest in my opinion.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    You could imagine the town hall meeting of Woking Borough Council with the solar salesman, or the domestic energy provider Robin Hood energy.
    “Yes we can do it much better than these private wasteful companies and give you the council taxpayer the most amazing return”
    Renewables is full of crooked salesman that promise unrealistic returns and dazzle local and national leaders with saving the earth and making easy money.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    edited 7:46AM
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    Of course each side is saying the same thing. Before the Dems dialled it down a touch following the attempted assassination of Trump, they were calling this the last election, and that Trump was a danger to the Republic and democracy in general.

    Of course neither Trump or Harris are the end of American democracy. If the Republic of Gilead ever came into being, it wouldn’t be by a Trumpian coup, but with rainbow lanyards, a dozen pronouns and lots of ‘Joy’.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,451
    AnneJGP said:

    Scott_xP said:

    AnneJGP said:

    IMO it was an entirely reasonable expectation that the PM who set up the referendum would have staff plan ahead for the possibility of a result he personally did not want. It was a dereliction of duty that he didn't.

    Nope

    A PM who campaigned against it and explained at length why it would be a bad idea could not reasonably be expected to deliver it.

    The public didn't have faith in his arguments. It is not reasonable to assume they had faith in his actions.

    The inevitable failures would have been blamed on Cameron's lack of appetite for the project, and not the fact it's inherently shit.

    Of all the mistakes Cameron made with regard to Brexit, resigning was not one of them.
    You are right about the resignation but CS staff are supposed to be neutral. There should have been a contingency plan in place, for whoever took over as PM.
    There was

    Government continued

    May negotiated a deal

    What else were they meant to do?

    They couldn't conjure the unicorns BoZo had promised the voters
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    The Supreme Court can’t throw out the Constitution.

    There will be an election in November 2028, and Donald J Trump will be ineligible if he served from Jan 2025 for more than two years.

    It’s written very much in black and white, and there’s no chance a constitutional amendment to change it could be ratified within the timescale required.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,047
    edited 7:46AM

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    If the carbon capture money was eventually used to fill some potholes in Islington it would be a better use of money than the current waste of money.

    I simply don't see what carbon capture is supposed to solve beyond adding additional costs...

    The money should be going on SMR or similar. But we are so late into that game that Rolls Royce have binned the UK factories for the none secret bits and those factories seem to be going to Eastern Europe who are now paying for the first few reactors...
    IIUC what carbon capture is supposed to achieve is that if you're trying to get to net zero, you need to either replace everything that currently emits CO2, find a way to either stop putting some of it into the atmosphere, or actively remove some of it.

    The problem is that some activities like cement or glass production emit CO2 even if you run them 100% on renewable energy. Then there are other things like aviation where the cost of not using fossil fuels looks like it'll be really high.

    So if you're serious about doing net zero, and you're not going for radical degrowth or something like that, you need carbon capture.

    However the other problem is that the current tech to do it doesn't work very well. With solar and wind and battery tech governments threw a lot of subsidies at people building them for a while then they ultimately made them really good and we could scale them up really big. Hopefully this will also happen with carbon capture, but we don't know. So the dilemma is that you can spend the money on solar and wind (or stuff like insulation) and in the short term it'll definitely be more effective than spending it on carbon capture, but then you're leaving part of the problem of getting to net zero totally unsolved.

    My take is that places that the places on the planet with the most relevant expertise should be building this stuff. If it works then the rest of the world can use it and it'll have a big impact. I don't know whether Britain is one of those places or not.
    Yes, I think this is fair.

    But not sensible for climate change mitigation. Climate change is happening happening now and we need to reduce emissions as quickly as possible; moving from coal to gas was brilliant for this. Moving to wind and solar (and nuclear) has to be the priority, along with EVs. CCS is, in this respect, a box-ticking exercise for the UK (but more important in places like China, India).

    And it's certainly not great for providing cheap and secure energy for people in the UK, which is the other benefit of renewables (once we sort our pricing system out).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    moonshine said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    If he’s got £22bn to blow on net zero, he should be doing some combination of fast tracking nuclear and incentivising grid scale battery storage. He’s a moron of the highest order.
    That’s a bit harsh towards high-order morons.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,540
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    We've already seen that "separation of powers" depends on good-faith behaviours and breaks down under even relatively slight pressure.

    I think it is probably the Federal/State structure that saves US democracy in the event of Trump2. We've already seen the greater independence of State Governors (e.g. in the recent hurricane disaster response) and I don't think they'll wear it.
  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    moonshine said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    If he’s got £22bn to blow on net zero, he should be doing some combination of fast tracking nuclear and incentivising grid scale battery storage. He’s a moron of the highest order.
    I suppose the point isn’t (thanks the poster on here who clarified it a few days ago), but the comms made it appear as if he was spaffing £22b on XYZ, just as they’ve made a big issue of using the same figure for their in year deficit (not including the actual deficit which aims much bigger).
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,691
    As an aside, the Northern Echo also has details of the "gifts" received by North East Mayor Kim McGuinness since her election in May.

    A cake was delivered without prior notice addressed to the mayor. Donor: Capital & Centric LTD. Value: £50. Date: May 6 2024.
    Private dinner with other UK Mayors. Donor: Aviva Investors. Value: £50. Date: 20 May 2024.
    Private dinner. Donor: Hitachi. Value: £50. Date: June 5 2024.
    Chamber of Commerce Business Awards. Donor: Chamber Business Awards. Value: £100. Date: June 27 2024.
    BBC Proms concert in Gateshead and reception. Donor: BBC Proms Concert – The Glasshouse. Value: £50. Date: July 26 2024.
    Edinburgh Tattoo Ceremony and evening meal. Donor: Edinburgh Tattoo. Value: £300. Date: August 19 2024
    “If U Care Share” shirt. Donor: If U Care Share. Value: £50. Date: August 30 2024.
    Great North Run Dinner. Donor: Great North Run Company. Value: £150. Date: September 7 2024.
    Accommodation at Hilton Hotel, Gateshead, before Great North Run. Donor: Great North Run Company. Value: £200. Date: September 7 2024.
    Private dinner at Labour Party Conference. Donor: Nissan. Value: £50. Date: September 24 2024.


    For balance, she also declined a number of gifts:

    An invitation from Channel 4 to a Paralympic Games Garden Party in Paris.
    Football tickets offered by Sunderland AFC, Newcastle United shirt sponsor Sela, and Newcastle Airport, as well as hospitality packages at an England rugby match at Twickenham and England’s one-day cricket international against Australia at Chester-le-Street.


    In the current spirit of neo-puritanism when it comes to political leaders receiving any kind of freebie, do we not need to apply some form of context (apart from the routine Labour bashing)?

    If this is going to the North East Mayor, what is going to other Council leaders such as the Mayor of Newham or the Leader of Surrey County Council? The value of the accepted gifts is just over £1000 - you may say that's £1000 too much but even if you take the cake and send it to a residential home (for example), you've still accepted the cake.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,547
    mwadams said:

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    We've already seen that "separation of powers" depends on good-faith behaviours and breaks down under even relatively slight pressure.

    I think it is probably the Federal/State structure that saves US democracy in the event of Trump2. We've already seen the greater independence of State Governors (e.g. in the recent hurricane disaster response) and I don't think they'll wear it.
    You forget too the key stakeholder, the US people. Trump isn’t winning half the vote because half the country love him. Most on both sides will be voting this year with nose pegs firmly on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058
    FF43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    Starmer certainly is ruthless but I'm not sure Sue Gray was the problem, and therefore getting rid of her would solve the problem. The problem basically is one of communication, the government explaining what it's up to and aligning implementation of policy to that agenda. Gray seemed strong on the wheels of government bit, which was surely her real job.
    Is it ?
    I'd say it's equally likely it's one of policy. Certainly if they get policy demonstrably right, then communication loses its importance.

    So far there's little sign they have a coherent governing agenda.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    You could imagine the town hall meeting of Woking Borough Council with the solar salesman, or the domestic energy provider Robin Hood energy.
    “Yes we can do it much better than these private wasteful companies and give you the council taxpayer the most amazing return”
    Renewables is full of crooked salesman that promise unrealistic returns and dazzle local and national leaders with saving the earth and making easy money.
    There was this story yesterday, of an old lady who signed up a decade ago to a 25-year solar panel lease agreement with a scumbag company.

    Now she’s sadly passed away, and the house is basically unsellable by her family because of this lease. Mortgage companies don’t like them.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13907521/solar-panels-Shade-Greener-ASG-unsellable-despite-asking-price-plummeting.html
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649

    moonshine said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    If he’s got £22bn to blow on net zero, he should be doing some combination of fast tracking nuclear and incentivising grid scale battery storage. He’s a moron of the highest order.
    I suppose the point isn’t (thanks the poster on here who clarified it a few days ago), but the comms made it appear as if he was spaffing £22b on XYZ, just as they’ve made a big issue of using the same figure for their in year deficit (not including the actual deficit which aims much bigger).
    The comms were appalling - because it's a simple check to say why does that number sound familiar - knock it down to £21bn...
  • eekeek Posts: 27,649
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    The woman was from Hillingdon which was her home area and Hillingdon Council provided emergency accommodation (as they are legally obliged) but that accommodation isn't cost free to the Council and it's that emergency provision which is financially hurting Hillingdon, Newham and other authorities,

    Even if she and her baby go to County Durham, Hillingdon will have to pay some support costs but, as you infer, the "cost" then ends up with County Durham who have to find accommodation but it's cheaper accommodation and I suspect there are transfer payments between the two authorities in the background to alleviate Durham's costs.

    You suspect incorrectly - there are no transfer payments - but there should be and they should be paid in full upfront until any children have left school.

    Having to find £150,000+ before a council dumps a family 250 miles north would focus council minds because at the moment they are creating real problems for northern councils by dumping people in villages with no communication links...
    Thanks for that - the problem isn't just this woman and her baby though that is an extreme example. The "farming out" of homeless families from London has gone on for years - other "popular" venues have been the south coast and Birmingham. It's not a national scandal such as the Post Office but it's something which has been well disguised over the decades and only comes to light when incidents like this are reported.

    It's a function of the distorted housing market but also of supply and demand. The other side of this is areas like Cornwall where the locals are priced out of their own towns and villages by second homeowners. You can build more houses (if you like) but the price of each unit will still be beyond the salaries of many locals who often work in low paid service and hospitality jobs supporting tourism.
    It's almost like selling social housing and (even worse) not replacing them was a bad idea as it created a single housing market which was previously split into 2..
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,527
    moonshine said:

    mwadams said:

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    We've already seen that "separation of powers" depends on good-faith behaviours and breaks down under even relatively slight pressure.

    I think it is probably the Federal/State structure that saves US democracy in the event of Trump2. We've already seen the greater independence of State Governors (e.g. in the recent hurricane disaster response) and I don't think they'll wear it.
    You forget too the key stakeholder, the US people. Trump isn’t winning half the vote because half the country love him. Most on both sides will be voting this year with nose pegs firmly on.
    In 2016, we all thought we’d seen the worst two candidates ever.

    In 2020, we all thought we’d seen the worst two candidates ever.

    Now, in 2024, we again have the worst two candidates ever.

    God knows what 2028 looks like, perhaps Americans will eventually come to their senses and choose a couple of candidates approaching normal?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058

    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Why it was likely Sue Gray would go

    And getting rid of all of those unhappy with her would have been difficult too – firstly, there were quite a few of them, and secondly finding them would not have been easy, as they had been making their feelings known discreetly.

    I am told - by sources that have been consistently reliable through all of this - that a decision was made on Friday and the prime minister was willing to sack Sue Gray. He had decided, whatever she said, that she could no longer be his chief of staff.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jwv9v95yzo

    Sounds like when you hear at a football club it been said that the manager has lost the dressing room.

    Looks like quite a ruthless re-organisation of the office staff, and a very necessary one.

    When it isn't working, it needs to change.
    It’s sacking the office manager and keeping the staff.

    Which suggests the change agenda is in trouble.
    Given all the briefing to media over the summer, there’s clearly been one hell of a fight going on behind the scenes as to who’s actually in charge of running the show.

    For the PM to lose his CoS only three months into being in government, does not reflect well on him.

    The appearance is that he’s got no plan at all, and the (domestic political) news is dominated by a whole load of troughing and tittle-tattle while we wait for the doom and gloom of the Budget. Where’s their daily News Grid, and an appropriate minister sent out to sell the Story of the Day?

    Even in the dying days of the last government, they could rely on the likes of Michael Gove to be up at 6am and spend the morning defending the indefensible.
    Last week's daily News Grid was dominated by their spending £22 billion on carbon capture.

    The same sum as the black hole they supposedly inherited from the Tories.

    When that story was then first up on the Jeremy Vine show, with people phoning in to proclaim it utter bollocks, you have no news operation.
    Complete madness, of course the detail is payments over many years if certain contractual conditions are met. But the surface of using the same figure as you mention, with the infamous black hole. What did they think people would do?
    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up - indeed, a cynic might assume that no progress on CCS will be made and those £22 billion payments will instead be found plugging potholes in Islington, like usual.

    It's a shame it's not something decent like offshore renewables hubs in Teesside and Aberdeen, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or tidal lagoons for power storage. Or 2/3rd of HS2 to Manchester. Or 22,000 miles of high-quality cycle lane.
    If the carbon capture money was eventually used to fill some potholes in Islington it would be a better use of money than the current waste of money.

    I simply don't see what carbon capture is supposed to solve beyond adding additional costs...

    The money should be going on SMR or similar. But we are so late into that game that Rolls Royce have binned the UK factories for the none secret bits and those factories seem to be going to Eastern Europe who are now paying for the first few reactors...
    IIUC what carbon capture is supposed to achieve is that if you're trying to get to net zero, you need to either replace everything that currently emits CO2, find a way to either stop putting some of it into the atmosphere, or actively remove some of it.

    The problem is that some activities like cement or glass production emit CO2 even if you run them 100% on renewable energy. Then there are other things like aviation where the cost of not using fossil fuels looks like it'll be really high.

    So if you're serious about doing net zero, and you're not going for radical degrowth or something like that, you need carbon capture.

    However the other problem is that the current tech to do it doesn't work very well. With solar and wind and battery tech governments threw a lot of subsidies at people building them for a while then they ultimately made them really good and we could scale them up really big. Hopefully this will also happen with carbon capture, but we don't know. So the dilemma is that you can spend the money on solar and wind (or stuff like insulation) and in the short term it'll definitely be more effective than spending it on carbon capture, but then you're leaving part of the problem of getting to net zero totally unsolved.

    My take is that places that the places on the planet with the most relevant expertise should be building this stuff. If it works then the rest of the world can use it and it'll have a big impact. I don't know whether Britain is one of those places or not.
    That ignores the economic aspect.
    Spending the money on wind/solar/tidal etc would be of direct and obvious benefit, both from lower energy prices, and our balance of payments.

    Carbon capture, as per this plan, both makes energy more expensive, and is of dubious benefit in climate change terms.

  • WildernessPt2WildernessPt2 Posts: 339
    Sandpit said:

    Eabhal said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Eabhal said:

    The most annoying thing about it is that, for once, we actually have a government 1) making an investment and 2) making that investment in the north. That should be unequalified good news.

    But they've messed it up

    I do wonder how much, if any, of this is the "Ed Miliband" effect

    His name is a byword for failure. Is this project doomed by association?
    I feel a bit betrayed/confused by it. Miliband was making all the right kind of noises about moving us away from O&G and driving a renewable energy economy, solar, offshore wind and the rest, and frankly upsetting the kind of people you need to upset to get it done.

    This CCS thing feels like regulatory capture.
    Reminds me on the Simpson episode were the monorail salesman visits town.
    You could imagine the town hall meeting of Woking Borough Council with the solar salesman, or the domestic energy provider Robin Hood energy.
    “Yes we can do it much better than these private wasteful companies and give you the council taxpayer the most amazing return”
    Renewables is full of crooked salesman that promise unrealistic returns and dazzle local and national leaders with saving the earth and making easy money.
    There was this story yesterday, of an old lady who signed up a decade ago to a 25-year solar panel lease agreement with a scumbag company.

    Now she’s sadly passed away, and the house is basically unsellable by her family because of this lease. Mortgage companies don’t like them.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13907521/solar-panels-Shade-Greener-ASG-unsellable-despite-asking-price-plummeting.html
    I know an RSL (registered social landlord) who fell for the same scam on a few of their houses across their estate. At least they don’t have to sell their properties, but they didn’t make a penny out of it and now having to sit tight.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,385
    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    mwadams said:

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    We've already seen that "separation of powers" depends on good-faith behaviours and breaks down under even relatively slight pressure.

    I think it is probably the Federal/State structure that saves US democracy in the event of Trump2. We've already seen the greater independence of State Governors (e.g. in the recent hurricane disaster response) and I don't think they'll wear it.
    You forget too the key stakeholder, the US people. Trump isn’t winning half the vote because half the country love him. Most on both sides will be voting this year with nose pegs firmly on.
    In 2016, we all thought we’d seen the worst two candidates ever.

    In 2020, we all thought we’d seen the worst two candidates ever.

    Now, in 2024, we again have the worst two candidates ever.

    God knows what 2028 looks like, perhaps Americans will eventually come to their senses and choose a couple of candidates approaching normal?
    So you think Biden was worse than Clinton and Harris is worse than Biden?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,609
    stodge said:

    eek said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    eek said:

    In theory this should be a significant news story this week

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24630437.single-mum-baby-forced-move-county-durham/

    It's not exactly news because dumping people in a different authority happens all the time but sending someone from Hillingdon / Uxbridge to a former mining village with no bus really isn't on - and this time the person involved seems happy for her identity to be known...

    The other aspect of this is the cost Hillingdon will have to pay for the accommodation and it is those costs which are causing problems for a number of Inner London boroughs. Yes, they could spend it in Hillingdon but, and I say this without local knowledge, I suspect rents are much higher so moving the homeless to cheaper accommodation outside the capital makes economic sense.

    Given we know there are empty properties on new build sites, perhaps some of these could be made available but presumably the developers will want paying and the market rate for the area.

    This won't be alleviated simply by the overused mantra of "build, build, build" as the economics of supply and demand don't alter the fact for some people housing in the area in which they were born and brought up and would prefer to live is now unaffordable, even at the most basic level of renting.
    What costs would Hillingdon pay? It has no homelessness duty to people sent to them from other authorities, unless the people have a local link (there is an exception to this, if the person is fleeing domestic violence, or says they are, the locality obligations for homelessness responsibilities are not imposed).
    The woman was from Hillingdon which was her home area and Hillingdon Council provided emergency accommodation (as they are legally obliged) but that accommodation isn't cost free to the Council and it's that emergency provision which is financially hurting Hillingdon, Newham and other authorities,

    Even if she and her baby go to County Durham, Hillingdon will have to pay some support costs but, as you infer, the "cost" then ends up with County Durham who have to find accommodation but it's cheaper accommodation and I suspect there are transfer payments between the two authorities in the background to alleviate Durham's costs.

    You suspect incorrectly - there are no transfer payments - but there should be and they should be paid in full upfront until any children have left school.

    Having to find £150,000+ before a council dumps a family 250 miles north would focus council minds because at the moment they are creating real problems for northern councils by dumping people in villages with no communication links...
    Thanks for that - the problem isn't just this woman and her baby though that is an extreme example. The "farming out" of homeless families from London has gone on for years - other "popular" venues have been the south coast and Birmingham. It's not a national scandal such as the Post Office but it's something which has been well disguised over the decades and only comes to light when incidents like this are reported.

    It's a function of the distorted housing market but also of supply and demand. The other side of this is areas like Cornwall where the locals are priced out of their own towns and villages by second homeowners. You can build more houses (if you like) but the price of each unit will still be beyond the salaries of many locals who often work in low paid service and hospitality jobs supporting tourism.
    Under Blair, this was a thing.

    One human rights group went to court to argue that housing asylum seekers in Edinburgh was inhumane. When interviewed by a journalist, they repeatedly dodged the question of native borne people being forced out of London.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,385

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    Of course each side is saying the same thing. Before the Dems dialled it down a touch following the attempted assassination of Trump, they were calling this the last election, and that Trump was a danger to the Republic and democracy in general.

    Of course neither Trump or Harris are the end of American democracy. If the Republic of Gilead ever came into being, it wouldn’t be by a Trumpian coup, but with rainbow lanyards, a dozen pronouns and lots of ‘Joy’.
    You've clearly not read or watched The Handmaid's Tale.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,058
    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    Neither do I - but you're looking at this as though it's some kind of binary event. A Trump presidency could do enormous damage while falling short of "ending democracy".

    Has Orban ended democracy in Hungary ?
    Probably not yet, but that's certainly the direction of travel.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,319

    moonshine said:

    Nigelb said:

    moonshine said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    "It would be a real shame if anything happened to her voters..."

    Trump says it’s “very dangerous” for Kamala Harris voters to identify themselves because they’ll “get hurt”
    https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1843020699092295724

    Trump means the end of US democracy; the end of aid to Ukraine; and the start of a very bad time for the world.

    Shame on those who support him and spread his shit.
    There’s a one in two chance you’re going to wake on 6 Nov with Trump as incoming president and there’s nothing you or anyone here can do about it. So best think past the hyperbole and think through if there’s a credible counter to your doom fears.

    Trump has already been president. It was not the end of US democracy, with the institutions of the US constitution remaining intact. It is tricky to see constitutionally how Trump would seek a third term in both meanings of the word (legally, and his physical fitness)...

    A second Trump administration is extremely unlikely to follow the pattern of the first.
    It's not for nothing that Trump has replaced almost the entirety of his White House team from last time round - and that almost every former cabinet member has said they won't vote for him.

    Last time round he barely even expect to win; there was no plan.
    He is now surrounded by people on board with his more extreme ideas - and with plans to implement them.

    There is ultimately the safeguard of separation of powers. Doesn’t mean it would be pretty but I don’t think the US is done as a democracy yet.
    Of course each side is saying the same thing. Before the Dems dialled it down a touch following the attempted assassination of Trump, they were calling this the last election, and that Trump was a danger to the Republic and democracy in general.

    Of course neither Trump or Harris are the end of American democracy. If the Republic of Gilead ever came into being, it wouldn’t be by a Trumpian coup, but with rainbow lanyards, a dozen pronouns and lots of ‘Joy’.
    You've clearly not read or watched The Handmaid's Tale.
    Mike Pence or DeSantis or Vance would be closer to that, Trump is a relative social liberal in today's GOP.

    If he wins that would be democracy even if you dislike the result
Sign In or Register to comment.