politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Your regular reminder that the betting markets are frequently and spectacularly wrong

SystemSystem Posts: 12,084
edited 6:24AM in General
imageYour regular reminder that the betting markets are frequently and spectacularly wrong – politicalbetting.com

Chart from Betdata.io of the next Tory leadership market over the last ten days

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,588
    edited 6:13AM
    Good morning, everyone.

    I also remember the exit poll some financial chaps commissioned in 2016 for the referendum.

    Edited extra bit: should've added, potentially dubious methods in polls can lead to them pointing in an inaccurate direction, as some have suggested may be occurring in the US contest.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    edited 6:15AM
    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,784
    On the other hand, if Political Betting were a perfect market, it would be much less fun and have much less potential for profit.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,697
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Ewwww. - agreeing with Gavin Williamson!

    I feel dirty
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,689
    edited 6:17AM
    A very timely header

    Indeed the point of interest is why the ‘wisdom’ of the betting crowds is so often down there with Leon?
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,769
    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,350
    First!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,350
    viewcode said:

    First!

    Dammit!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,350
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    First!

    Dammit!
    Very much not first in fact.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,350
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    First!

    Dammit!
    Very much not first in fact.
    Poo. Ho, hum.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,588
    What are the constitutional implications of removing the Lords Spiritual on the established nature of the Anglican Church?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    RochdalePioneers said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Ewwww. - agreeing with Gavin Williamson!

    I feel dirty
    Just be glad I didn't say 'Sir Gavin Williamson's bishop bashing.'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    "The betting are.." ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    edited 6:23AM
    Morris_Dancer said:

    What are the constitutional implications of removing the Lords Spiritual on the established nature of the Anglican Church?

    We join the civilised world, excluding the microstates, the UK and Iran are the only countries in the world that have unelected clergy in their parliaments.

    Next step is to stop the head of state being the head of the Anglican church, a clear conflict of interest.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    Good reminder, though.
    The smart money in betting doesn't believe it can predict outcomes anyway. It just has the nous to work out when the odds are significantly out of line with real world evidence.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    Nigelb said:

    "The betting are.." ?

    markets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    We're three weeks away from the election, and we have literally no idea what the business relationship with Trump Org and the Saudis/Emiratis is.

    No one has asked if either of the failsons (or Lara) will get a job in the White House to cash out for $2B in 4 years...

    ...We learned last week (from the NYT*, among others!) that Trump is bypassing transition laws, meaning he--and his sons, the Saudi business partners and transition team members--could just get payments from the Saudis all the way until inauguration.

    https://x.com/emptywheel/status/1846280744609681643

    *buried on the inside pages.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    On topic: sometimes people are just too Cleverly by far…
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Translation: hereditaries are Tory whilst the Bish vote for us.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,456
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    This is a huge blow for the antidisestablishmentarianism movement.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,081
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.

    Surely the header shows that punters don't know what we are talking about?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    If this guy can't confidently call the result in Nevada, no one can.
    Which demonstrates the level of uncertainty about a large range if possible outcomes for next month's election.


    Nevada’s Election Oracle Says His Crystal Ball Is Broken

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/why-the-2024-election-in-nevada-is-so-hard-to-predict.html
    ...But the main reason for the tremendous explosion of independent voters is an automatic voter-registration law that started having an effect about three years ago. If you go to the DMV, you can register to vote as a Democrat or a Republican, but if you don’t, you are auto-registered as an independent and nonpartisan.

    So that has changed the dynamic. And I think a lot of these voters, who I call zombie voters — they don’t even know they’re registered. They don’t care that much about politics. They’re not that engaged. So it’s unclear what real percentage of those voters are actually going to cast a ballot.

    And that makes your life a lot more difficult in terms of predicting this stuff. You’re the Oracle of Nevada — the one guy in the country who’s been pretty accurate with early-voting data in the past.

    What do you mean pretty accurate?

    Sorry, I meant 100 percent.

    But seriously, my crystal ball has cracks in it. It’s very, very difficult with this new orientation to try to predict. But my predictions are not just based on data; they’re also based on sources on the ground and even just my gut instinct. And I have to tell you, I had a feeling in 2020 and 2016 toward the end that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were going to win the state, even if not by a great margin. I really have no idea right now. It’s so close, and both sides think it’s within a point or so...

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.

    Surely the header shows that punters don't know what we are talking about?
    "People in the Westminster village followed PB and the political betting markets as there was a belief the smart money was always right given the amounts traded."

    They don't know what they're talking about if they're not doing their own analysis and research. Just blindly following others.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.

    Surely the header shows that punters don't know what we are talking about?
    They're not mutually exclusive propositions.
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,897
    Israel now planning to attack Iranian military sites only.

    No attack on Oil and no attack on Nuclear.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israel-planning-blitz-on-iran-military-sites-in-response-for-missile-attack/ar-AA1siKGs?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1cff8f46bfe04c088773e9fb2850fef7&ei=20
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,605
    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,784
    IanB2 said:

    bondegezou said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    This is a huge blow for the antidisestablishmentarianism movement.
    Clever politics from an opposition of small numbers - table something that will produce internal disagreements within the government side.
    Clever, but probably not clever enough. Think an talented sixth former up against an Oxbridge don.

    1. Any Labour MPs who have profound discomfort with this can be given the day off without threatening government business.

    2. It's going to split the Conservatives at least as much as the government. What will Proper Tories make of this?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    edited 6:48AM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,081
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.

    Surely the header shows that punters don't know what we are talking about?
    They're not mutually exclusive propositions.
    With the retrospectoscope all three of the above graphs showed toss ups as foregone conclusions, with straws in the wind indicating the true result.

    The hard part is detecting those straws amongst the chaff. The POTUS election will be obvious afterwards. But is it the female vote for Harris or the redneck vote for Trump that is the straw in the wind?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    Taz said:

    Israel now planning to attack Iranian military sites only.

    No attack on Oil and no attack on Nuclear.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israel-planning-blitz-on-iran-military-sites-in-response-for-missile-attack/ar-AA1siKGs?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1cff8f46bfe04c088773e9fb2850fef7&ei=20

    Someone in Israel, as with someone in Saudi, has been answering Blinken’s calls in recent days.

    The US strategic oil stockpile is now pretty much empty, so any price spike will quickly go to ‘gas’ pump prices weeks before the election.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,165
    Japan feels……. Poor
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,510
    RochdalePioneers said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Ewwww. - agreeing with Gavin Williamson!

    I feel dirty
    Caught in his tarantula's web?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,081
    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    It's like downgrading Newsnight to a round table discussion of talking heads. Soon real journalism will only be in the history books, but we will be drowning in commentary.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
    It’s almost certainly 2. The job of Opposition is to oppose, and with such a large majority the Opposition needs to find something on which Labour MPs are willing to cross the floor to support.

    Memories of the anti-Brexit campaigners in the 2017 Parliament, and their endless amendments to neuter the business of the government.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,932
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Another broken promise from Labour

    The hereditaries remained in post to force a reform of the Lords. That’s was the stolen promise Labour made.

    Switching to a fully appointed house is not an improvement for democracy and different perspectives.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,784
    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
    Suppose it could be the first- revenge for all the times the bishops bash the government. But that runs into the "you had fourteen years to do something" counterpoint.

    The second is more likely, but massively overestimates the ability of 121 MPs to affect anything. Think Scrappy Doo being held up very the collar so he punches thin air.

    But ultimately... Conservatives proposing a constitutional change on a whim which they probably don't really believe in but think may give them a partisan win? Surely not.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,081
    Stuartinromford said:

    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
    Suppose it could be the first- revenge for all the times the bishops bash the government. But that runs into the "you had fourteen years to do something" counterpoint.

    The second is more likely, but massively overestimates the ability of 121 MPs to affect anything. Think Scrappy Doo being held up very the collar so he punches thin air.

    But ultimately... Conservatives proposing a constitutional change on a whim which they probably don't really believe in but think may give them a partisan win? Surely not.
    I can't see it working. I would think more Labour than Con MPs would be happy to bash the bishops.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,510
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Israel now planning to attack Iranian military sites only.

    No attack on Oil and no attack on Nuclear.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israel-planning-blitz-on-iran-military-sites-in-response-for-missile-attack/ar-AA1siKGs?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1cff8f46bfe04c088773e9fb2850fef7&ei=20

    Someone in Israel, as with someone in Saudi, has been answering Blinken’s calls in recent days.

    The US strategic oil stockpile is now pretty much empty, so any price spike will quickly go to ‘gas’ pump prices weeks before the election.
    Although well down from recent peaks the strategic reserve seems to have 300m barrels of oil in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#/media/File:US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp

    The US uses 20m barrels a day so that is enough to have an impact. They are also, of course, self sufficient in production, if not in every kind of oil.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, the Westminster Village don't know what they're talking about.

    Surely the header shows that punters don't know what we are talking about?
    They're not mutually exclusive propositions.
    With the retrospectoscope all three of the above graphs showed toss ups as foregone conclusions, with straws in the wind indicating the true result.

    The hard part is detecting those straws amongst the chaff. The POTUS election will be obvious afterwards. But is it the female vote for Harris or the redneck vote for Trump that is the straw in the wind?
    Both the practice and the assessment of politics has always tended to use for guidance the rear view mirror alone.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,697
    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    People use Seatfrog to buy a cheap upgrade..
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,743
    Monksfield said:

    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



    Still at least 2.5....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.

    It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,605
    Foxy said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    It's like downgrading Newsnight to a round table discussion of talking heads. Soon real journalism will only be in the history books, but we will be drowning in commentary.
    Worse, podcasts (and incessant associated trailers) of commentary.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,697
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
    He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)

    Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.

    “It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,689
    Stuartinromford said:

    IanB2 said:

    bondegezou said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    This is a huge blow for the antidisestablishmentarianism movement.
    Clever politics from an opposition of small numbers - table something that will produce internal disagreements within the government side.
    Clever, but probably not clever enough. Think an talented sixth former up against an Oxbridge don.

    1. Any Labour MPs who have profound discomfort with this can be given the day off without threatening government business.

    2. It's going to split the Conservatives at least as much as the government. What will Proper Tories make of this?
    Let's wait until HY wakes up, and we will find out...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,784
    Sandpit said:

    MattW said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Good morning everyone.

    This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?

    Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.

    Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:

    1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar.
    2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.

    Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
    It’s almost certainly 2. The job of Opposition is to oppose, and with such a large majority the Opposition needs to find something on which Labour MPs are willing to cross the floor to support.

    Memories of the anti-Brexit campaigners in the 2017 Parliament, and their endless amendments to neuter the business of the government.
    Agree that it's the same concept in theory, but the dynamics are very different.

    For a start, the 2017-19 Parliament was hung, not a landslide majority. Government business was genuinely at risk every time. For the next four years, it really isn't.

    Secondly, anti-Brexit types were tragicomically divided, which stopped them getting anything.

    Does the Williamson amendment even have majority support amongst Conservatives?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,932
    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    People who can recharge the costs to investors plus MPs and the like

    Anyone who’s shareholders or partners pay not so much
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,165
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
    Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long

    Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK
    It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people
    It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well

    They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 69,498
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    Thank heavens someone recognises the value of the PB editor's access to the internet.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    edited 7:05AM
    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,466
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Monksfield said:

    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



    Still at least 2.5....
    That's State Pension. Other benefits are linked to inflation so the 1.7% will apply.

    I thought public sector pensions were inflation too?

    My private defined benefit pension is also inflation (though December's IIRC) but with a maximum of 5%.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    edited 7:06AM
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.

    Making the Lords *less* democratic.
    One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.

    Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,605
    TimS said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.

    It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
    I hope I can be objective about something even if it has British in its name, eg objectively BBC Scotland is parochial crap. My appreciation of the BBC is shrinking to bits of the World Service, From Our Own Correspondent and foreign stuff on BBC4.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,510
    I think most people were forecasting inflation below 2%, albeit 1.7% is a bit lower than expected. It suggests that the Bank's hesitancy in cutting interest rates at their last meeting was misplaced. It also, once again, raises the issue of whether Sunak was a tad premature in going in July.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    The closest Western European analogue is perhaps Italy?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,165
    edited 7:11AM
    TimS said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.

    It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
    I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?

    How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    edited 7:12AM
    But Japan does have better mobile reception on the trains
  • TazTaz Posts: 13,897
    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    It's a Travel Tavern !!!!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,689
    Benpointer said:

    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Monksfield said:

    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



    Still at least 2.5....
    That's State Pension. Other benefits are linked to inflation so the 1.7% will apply.

    I thought public sector pensions were inflation too?

    My private defined benefit pension is also inflation (though December's IIRC) but with a maximum of 5%.
    State Pension next year will be +4% thanks to the TL
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    edited 7:16AM
    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.

    Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    The closest Western European analogue is perhaps Italy?
    I had not realised Japan had gone backwards that far in the last year or two. Their population is down ~4% since 2010. They will be attracted by the move towards automation in military systems in South Korea covered by Perun last Sunday.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFLVV1idYw
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,165
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    It is strikingly noticeable

    It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas

    Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here

    It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs

    Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now

    OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,878
    IanB2 said:

    Benpointer said:

    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Monksfield said:

    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



    Still at least 2.5....
    That's State Pension. Other benefits are linked to inflation so the 1.7% will apply.

    I thought public sector pensions were inflation too?

    My private defined benefit pension is also inflation (though December's IIRC) but with a maximum of 5%.
    State Pension next year will be +4% thanks to the TL
    Yep. But other benefits will be facing a very low increase of 1.7% as September's figure is used. Gonna be big trouble if Iran kicks off and energy prices surge again this winter and benefit peeps are only get 1.7%.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,346
    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.

    Making the Lords *less* democratic.
    One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.

    Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
    Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    MattW said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    The closest Western European analogue is perhaps Italy?
    Similar demographics (but they do at least get some immigration and seasonal workers) but different causes and different economic structure. Japan doesn’t suffer from a large informal economy, or massive regional inequality. Italy changes government every 5 minutes, Japan does the opposite. Japan is underpinned by vast sprawling conglomerates that lack flexibility. Italy is driven by small anrtisanal businesses. Italy always underperformed peers, Japan used to outcompete them.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,932
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    Monksfield said:

    Inflation unexpectedly falls to 1.7%

    Conveniently in the month used to calculate increases to public sector pensions.



    Still at least 2.5....
    That’s state pension not benefits/0ublic sector pensions
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,608
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TimS said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.

    It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
    I hope I can be objective about something even if it has British in its name, eg objectively BBC Scotland is parochial crap. My appreciation of the BBC is shrinking to bits of the World Service, From Our Own Correspondent and foreign stuff on BBC4.
    I think the only BBC stuff I get these days is about 5-10 minutes of PM on R4 to catch the headlines, and Broadcasting House on a Sunday morning up until around when they get some celebs to talk about the newspapers.

    I don't think I've watched any BBC TV output this year at all.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,027
    Some new polling came out overnight .

    Marist

    Harris 52
    Trump 47

    Marquette

    Harris 48
    Trump 47
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    edited 7:20AM
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    It is strikingly noticeable

    It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas

    Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here

    It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs

    Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now

    OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
    I much prefer Osaka to Tokyo though. The bit by the canal, with all the Okonomiyake restaurants. I find its geography easier to comprehend than Tokyo’s.

    Have you been to Kobe? My favourite Japanese city. Just down the road.

    EDIT: I see you mention you lived in Japan. So presumably yes you’ve been to most places.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,257
    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'.
    It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,932
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…

    Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…

    Although on reflection…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    edited 7:21AM
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Israel now planning to attack Iranian military sites only.

    No attack on Oil and no attack on Nuclear.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/israel-planning-blitz-on-iran-military-sites-in-response-for-missile-attack/ar-AA1siKGs?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=1cff8f46bfe04c088773e9fb2850fef7&ei=20

    Someone in Israel, as with someone in Saudi, has been answering Blinken’s calls in recent days.

    The US strategic oil stockpile is now pretty much empty, so any price spike will quickly go to ‘gas’ pump prices weeks before the election.
    Although well down from recent peaks the strategic reserve seems to have 300m barrels of oil in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)#/media/File:US_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve.webp

    The US uses 20m barrels a day so that is enough to have an impact. They are also, of course, self sufficient in production, if not in every kind of oil.
    Ah yes, it’s better than I thought it was.

    I fell for a very badly labelled graph with a zero on the price y-axis but not on the volume y-axis. Reuters should be much better than that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,510
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.

    Making the Lords *less* democratic.
    One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.

    Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
    Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
    Or just abolish the whole damn thing.

    But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,165
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    It is strikingly noticeable

    It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas

    Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here

    It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs

    Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now

    OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
    I much prefer Osaka to Tokyo though. The bit by the canal, with all the Okonomiyake restaurants. I find its geography easier to comprehend than Tokyo’s.

    Have you been to Kobe? My favourite Japanese city. Just down the road.

    EDIT: I see you mention you lived in Japan. So presumably yes you’ve been to most places.
    Yes I lived in Kyoto and went all over
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,784
    DavidL said:

    I think most people were forecasting inflation below 2%, albeit 1.7% is a bit lower than expected. It suggests that the Bank's hesitancy in cutting interest rates at their last meeting was misplaced. It also, once again, raises the issue of whether Sunak was a tad premature in going in July.

    The most unpopular thing the government has done is the early release of prisoners. That was, for those with eyes to see, inevitable and predictable and would have been necessary even without the riots.

    Imagine what would have happened if it had been on Sunak's watch. He had to do a runner.

    In terms of the header, there are lots of factors affecting politics and it's hard to tell which ones matter in real time.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,257
    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    I've found that if you are focussed on doing work , it makes no difference which 'class' you are in; although some of the standard class carriages seem to be designed for maximum discomfort, ie lack of legroom (the unrefurbished voyager trains being particularly poor in this respect).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,846
    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    Policies mostly written by HR and accounting types, who just see numbers on a spreadsheet but who never leave the office themselves.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,836
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.

    Making the Lords *less* democratic.
    One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.

    Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
    Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
    That's actually what I would do, though not (of course) Chief Trainspotter. *If* the HoL is meant to be a revising chamber, then stuff it with experts. Not just lawyers, but engineers, scientists, educationalists, charity representatives, and all sorts of other field experts. Let (say) the Royal Society of Chemistry vote on who will represent them. Let the organisations decide on term limits and how they can get rid of them if they do not perform.

    In addition, let them form committees that can advise the government and wider HoC on legislation and the way thing work.

    That, IMO, would lead to far better legislation than just stuffing it with elected party reps.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,897
    edited 7:24AM
    StillWaters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…

    Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…

    Although on reflection…
    Dodgy analysis.

    What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.

    For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.

    You save money in the long term with that approach.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,546
    @SkyNews

    Former White House Director of Communications @Scaramucci has predicted that Kamala Harris will win the US election despite recent polling suggesting the race is to close to call.

    https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1846445579015991733
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,510
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    It is strikingly noticeable

    It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas

    Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here

    It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs

    Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now

    OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
    I don't think that humans can live in a society with such a shortage of youth without getting melancholy. They are the future, they are the point and they give purpose to our lives even if they are occasionally annoying.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    Cookie said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.

    Making the Lords *less* democratic.
    One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.

    Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
    Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
    "Hobby" is questionable. It depends what you want the Lords to be - an alternative democratic representation, say like Australia's Senate (regional and longer terms), an appointed 'house of experts and experience', or a mixture, or something else.

    And what you want it to do.

    Me, I think the revising functions work well, and the non-political / crossbench peers work well (eg Tanni-Grey Thompson), but the political side has more problems at the fringes.

    I'm perhaps drawn to a hybrid model where there are appointed 'experts' who speak but don't have voting rights. That was a model I saw proposed by by friend Carl Gardner who way back was one of the lawyers who worked for Govt in framing iirc the Human Rights Act.

    Like everything here, it will evolve not revolt.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'.
    It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
    This. My current client involves a lot of business travel and the stinginess of the expenses policy and the difficulty we have getting corporate auditors (based in India) to authorise fully reimbursable expenses from the client is a nightmare. It is demoralising my team.

    And, yes, I usually stay in Premier Inns or Travelodge. The policy will stretch to nothing else, and the latter is truly dire.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'.
    It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
    This. My current client involves a lot of business travel and the stinginess of the expenses policy and the difficulty we have getting corporate auditors (based in India) to authorise fully reimbursable expenses from the client is a nightmare. It is demoralising my team.

    And, yes, I usually stay in Premier Inns or Travelodge. The policy will stretch to nothing else, and the latter is truly dire.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    edited 7:26AM
    rottenborough said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    I only tend to hear Hardtalk via bouts of insomnia but I’m always impressed. Well played BBC, well played.

    https://x.com/stephensackur/status/1846166070664511853?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

    Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.

    It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
    I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?

    How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
    And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
    It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.

    Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.

    Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,217
    Casino_Royale said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    I remember this from a few years ago - a particular low point being a travelodge with a 'breakfast box'.
    It is actually an incentive to switch to a job that does not involve business travel.
    This. My current client involves a lot of business travel and the stinginess of the expenses policy and the difficulty we have getting corporate auditors (based in India) to authorise fully reimbursable expenses from the client is a nightmare. It is demoralising my team.

    And, yes, I usually stay in Premier Inns or Travelodge. The policy will stretch to nothing else, and the latter is truly dire.
    No Gideon Bibles for you ! :smile:
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,415
    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    Policies mostly written by HR and accounting types, who just see numbers on a spreadsheet but who never leave the office themselves.
    Yup
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,342
    Sandpit said:

    TimS said:

    eek said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    TimS said:

    This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.

    I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.

    Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.

    Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.

    My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
    A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.

    Expense policies being what they are, I couldn’t travel in first even if it were cheaper than standard.

    One of the little corporate microaggressions of the last decade and a half: the ratcheting down of generosity in travel and expenses policies. Travelling well, staying in nice hotels and having slap up meals out was one of the consolations of the hard slog of corporate life. It was inevitably going to disappear eventually, but post Covid it’s at Alan Partridge levels. My last 2 domestic overnight stays were in premier inns.
    Policies mostly written by HR and accounting types, who just see numbers on a spreadsheet but who never leave the office themselves.
    The trouble with Covid was this: for a year and a half almost all corporate travel, hospitality and expenses ceased. Everyone saw a nice little bump in their P&L as opex fell. When the world opened up again they were loath to turn the taps back on.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,442
    StillWaters said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.

    Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords

    Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house

    Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.

    Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.

    The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.

    However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.

    After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/tory-mps-jeremy-corbyn-h9x8zjgjd

    Another broken promise from Labour

    The hereditaries remained in post to force a reform of the Lords. That’s was the stolen promise Labour made.

    Switching to a fully appointed house is not an improvement for democracy and different perspectives.
    Just scrap the whole thing and have a devolved English Parliament.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,878
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Japan feels……. Poor

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/263596/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-japan/

    It is. $33k per capita vs $46k in the UK. And $34k in South Korea.

    Decades of demographic stagnation, excessive private saving, industrial inertia.

    Tell you one thing they need: a bit of immigration.
    It is strikingly noticeable

    It feels like a country that has completely run out of ideas

    Admittedly this is day 1 - could be jet lag could be the fact I’m in Osaka - but I’m good at this. Getting an instant grasp. And there’s no denying that half the taxis are vintage Toyota Corollas - the very same cars they were driving in 1995 when I lived here

    It’s like Cuba with its old Cadillacs

    Rather melancholy. Japan felt like the future back then - dazzling!! Definitely doesn’t now

    OTOH it is spotless and crime free and the people are lovely albeit a little melancholy
    I don't think that humans can live in a society with such a shortage of youth without getting melancholy. They are the future, they are the point and they give purpose to our lives even if they are occasionally annoying.
    Sounds like they build good cars though if taxi are still Toyota Corollas from 1990s.
Sign In or Register to comment.