Skip to content

Clarkson’s talk about becoming an MP, will it lead to diddly squat? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,744
edited October 21 in General
Clarkson’s talk about becoming an MP, will it lead to diddly squat? – politicalbetting.com

Jeremy Clarkson appears to have threatened to stand against Ed Miliband as an MPBy 45% to 35%, the British public think Clarkson would make a bad MPyougov.co.uk/topics/enter…

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615
    Nigel Farage must be producing enough fertiliser to keep a thousand acre farm going for five years at the thought of Clarkson in Parliament.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,657
    Is he intending to stand for a party or as an independent?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,430
    edited October 21
    ydoethur said:

    Nigel Farage must be producing enough fertiliser to keep a thousand acre farm going for five years at the thought of Clarkson in Parliament.

    Yay, somebody spotted my subtle reference to Clarkson's Farm in the headline.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21
    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267

    Is he intending to stand for a party or as an independent?

    A Tory I would have thought. Good luck with that.

    The sad thing is our licence fee facilitated this f*****.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615
    FPT
    dunham said:

    Ratters said:

    Our latest Westminster voting intention (19-20 Oct) has the Greens on their highest figure ever recorded by YouGov

    Reform UK: 26% (-1 from 12-13 Oct)
    Labour: 20% (=)
    Conservatives: 17% (=)
    Lib Dems: 15% (-1)
    Greens: 15% (+2)
    SNP: 4% (+1)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1980596985192427849?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Green versus Reform as main two parties next election?

    I imagine there's still plenty of soft Labour support that would be willing to vote for a more ideological alternative.
    The Caerphilly by-election in 2 days is in effect a Green vs Reform contest.
    I think that's a little simplistic. Yes, Plaid have green-ish credentials and some links to Socialism, and they have in the past had joint tickets with the Greens (notably Cynog Dafis in Ceredigion and North Pembroke in 1992).

    But they aren't really a Green Party in the accepted sense of the word, and their net is cast much wider than the Green policy offering
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615

    ydoethur said:

    Nigel Farage must be producing enough fertiliser to keep a thousand acre farm going for five years at the thought of Clarkson in Parliament.

    Yay, somebody spotted my subtle reference to Clarkson's Farm in the headline.
    I assure you, I saw no subtle reference to Clarkson's Farm in your headline.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    dunham said:

    Ratters said:

    Our latest Westminster voting intention (19-20 Oct) has the Greens on their highest figure ever recorded by YouGov

    Reform UK: 26% (-1 from 12-13 Oct)
    Labour: 20% (=)
    Conservatives: 17% (=)
    Lib Dems: 15% (-1)
    Greens: 15% (+2)
    SNP: 4% (+1)


    https://x.com/yougov/status/1980596985192427849?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g

    Green versus Reform as main two parties next election?

    I imagine there's still plenty of soft Labour support that would be willing to vote for a more ideological alternative.
    The Caerphilly by-election in 2 days is in effect a Green vs Reform contest.
    I think that's a little simplistic. Yes, Plaid have green-ish credentials and some links to Socialism, and they have in the past had joint tickets with the Greens (notably Cynog Dafis in Ceredigion and North Pembroke in 1992).

    But they aren't really a Green Party in the accepted sense of the word, and their net is cast much wider than the Green policy offering
    I suspect it will go Reform.

    If only a former leader of Reform in Wales had pleaded guilty to some pro Russian corruption and the media had decided to run with it. Can't win 'em all.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of the prosecution of Latetia James, she is charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

    The question is a simple one: did she claim it was a second home (when it wasn't) when it was in fact going to be rented out?

    The whole case -apparently- relates to a single check box that was left unchecked on one page of the mortgage application form.

    Now, the interesting question (or issue) for the prosecution is that it appears that Ms James did not fill out the application. She sat in the bank office, while being asked questions, and a bank employee filled the form in.

    This makes it quite a difficult case for the prosecution, because how do they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bank employee actually asked the question, and correctly acted?

    If she's put on the stand and says "I don't remember asking this specific question", or "it's perfectly possible that I made a mistake", or -indeed- the defence introduces evidence that a significant percentage of applications have minor errors like this caused by bank errors, then it will extremely difficult to get it beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's not as clear cut as the Comey case (where he is clearly but technically innocent), but at the same time, I can't help feel that it will be extremely difficult to get 12 members of a Jury* to agree to her having a mens rea over a box she did not fill in herself.

    * And you need all 12 to agree in the US

    An interesting perspective, if it’s correct that she didn’t fill out the form herself but just signed it at the end of an ‘interview’ with the bank employee. Presumably the bank employee would have been expected to go through the whole form again, line by line, before it was actually signed?

    I really wouldn’t want to be the bank’s lawyers in subsequent Federal legal actions, that would allege that either their staff were at best routinely negligent, or at worst active accomplices in mortgage fraud. With a large dataset of actual mortgages to go on, and the history of these loans being repackaged and sold on as we saw in 2008.
    I suspect that Ms James would have been handed a printout, and would be expected to look through it before signing.

    The issue is that if she did not, then while there is certainly a civil case against her, then proving mens rea is going to be exceptionally hard.
    So the case depends on whether she was expected to read the printout on her own, or whether the ‘advisor’ on commission walked her through it line by line.

    If I were that ‘advisor’, I think I’d throw her under the bus to save my own ass and that of my employer, political considerations aside.
    The thing is, it probably still doesn't lead to a guilty verdict, if the defence can bring forward half a dozen other witnesses who said that [x] didn't read through the whole application line-by-line.

    It's a tough case: it's entirely possible that Ms James did lie on the form to get favorable mortgage terms. But I'm struggling to see how it gets past reasonable doubt.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Clarkson as a Tory brings to the Party what most Tories do not, namely celebrity and recognition.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Clarkson as a Tory brings to the Party what most Tories do not, namely celebrity and recognition.
    Are you saying that Mr Tax Efficiency, Gary Barlow, wasn't a big name draw?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,576
    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,718

    Is he intending to stand for a party or as an independent?

    A Tory I would have thought. Good luck with that.

    The sad thing is our licence fee facilitated this f*****.
    Among other things, he was a Remainer. Unlike Corbyn.

    Which is a fun way to make people go WTAF, when you tell them.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,576
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,163
    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Clarkson as a Tory brings to the Party what most Tories do not, namely celebrity and recognition.
    Are you saying that Mr Tax Efficiency, Gary Barlow, wasn't a big name draw?
    He's no Giles Brandreth.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of the prosecution of Latetia James, she is charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

    The question is a simple one: did she claim it was a second home (when it wasn't) when it was in fact going to be rented out?

    The whole case -apparently- relates to a single check box that was left unchecked on one page of the mortgage application form.

    Now, the interesting question (or issue) for the prosecution is that it appears that Ms James did not fill out the application. She sat in the bank office, while being asked questions, and a bank employee filled the form in.

    This makes it quite a difficult case for the prosecution, because how do they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bank employee actually asked the question, and correctly acted?

    If she's put on the stand and says "I don't remember asking this specific question", or "it's perfectly possible that I made a mistake", or -indeed- the defence introduces evidence that a significant percentage of applications have minor errors like this caused by bank errors, then it will extremely difficult to get it beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's not as clear cut as the Comey case (where he is clearly but technically innocent), but at the same time, I can't help feel that it will be extremely difficult to get 12 members of a Jury* to agree to her having a mens rea over a box she did not fill in herself.

    * And you need all 12 to agree in the US

    Were there any significant tax or other benefits of what she wrote on the form? If I, a bank, were comfortable with her financial position for the loan without rental income, the added rental income should improve her affordability?

    As, if not, it very much seems to be a prosecution based on ticking the wrong box on a form once with no real world implications.
    The bank will give you a very different interest rate and deposit requirement on your own house, compared to a rental.
    Well, there are a number of factors here:

    Firstly, people will often buy a house for one reason, and then change it. I bought my house in Hampstead to live in, then rented it out when I moved to the US. So, there's a defence for Ms James (if the box was knowingly not ticked), that she had intended it to be a second home at the time that the mortgage was taken out, and changed it later.

    Secondly, I don't know whether this is about interest rates, becaus interest rates can actually be lower on rental property mortgages so long as they get first lein on rental payments. On the other hand rental mortgages often contain a lot more stringent conditions: lower loan-to-value; requirements to inform the bank if a property is unrented for more than a certain number of months; a requirement for rental income to exceed mortgage payments by a certain amount. It's possible that Ms James achieved no interest rate benefit, but did have many fewer disclosure requirements to the bank.
    She said it was to be her primary home, but was clearly living elsewhere at the time.
    The loan application says it was to be a secondary residence, but for her own use. However, there apparently exists a separate "Power of Attorney Document" which lists it as her primary residence (which would definitely be a lie.) This does not, however, form part of the mortgage application process.

    It is worth noting through all of this that the mortgage itself is absolutely tiny: just $109,000 in total.
  • Sandpit said:

    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.

    Nobody is going to stand aside for Clarkson, and his entry (such as it is - I don't really expect him to see it through) makes Miliband's life easier rather than harder by splitting the vote against him.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Clarkson as a Tory brings to the Party what most Tories do not, namely celebrity and recognition.
    Are you saying that Mr Tax Efficiency, Gary Barlow, wasn't a big name draw?
    He's no Giles Brandreth.
    Or Seb Coe.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    edited October 21
    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,046
    Tweo racists walk into a pub

    The bar person says to them what can I get you Mr Jenrick and Mr Starmer.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,816

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Was Murray actually being serious though? If Clarkson stood I think it would be a serious attempt, not a joke.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 20,816

    Is he intending to stand for a party or as an independent?

    A Tory I would have thought. Good luck with that.

    The sad thing is our licence fee facilitated this f*****.
    Not a fan? He is a brilliant broadcaster and generous - he tends to make other people into stars (see Hammond and May, and now Caleb). Don't buy into the extreme version on TV - as Francis says that's a persona.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,376
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ratters said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of the prosecution of Latetia James, she is charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

    The question is a simple one: did she claim it was a second home (when it wasn't) when it was in fact going to be rented out?

    The whole case -apparently- relates to a single check box that was left unchecked on one page of the mortgage application form.

    Now, the interesting question (or issue) for the prosecution is that it appears that Ms James did not fill out the application. She sat in the bank office, while being asked questions, and a bank employee filled the form in.

    This makes it quite a difficult case for the prosecution, because how do they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bank employee actually asked the question, and correctly acted?

    If she's put on the stand and says "I don't remember asking this specific question", or "it's perfectly possible that I made a mistake", or -indeed- the defence introduces evidence that a significant percentage of applications have minor errors like this caused by bank errors, then it will extremely difficult to get it beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's not as clear cut as the Comey case (where he is clearly but technically innocent), but at the same time, I can't help feel that it will be extremely difficult to get 12 members of a Jury* to agree to her having a mens rea over a box she did not fill in herself.

    * And you need all 12 to agree in the US

    Were there any significant tax or other benefits of what she wrote on the form? If I, a bank, were comfortable with her financial position for the loan without rental income, the added rental income should improve her affordability?

    As, if not, it very much seems to be a prosecution based on ticking the wrong box on a form once with no real world implications.
    The bank will give you a very different interest rate and deposit requirement on your own house, compared to a rental.
    Well, there are a number of factors here:

    Firstly, people will often buy a house for one reason, and then change it. I bought my house in Hampstead to live in, then rented it out when I moved to the US. So, there's a defence for Ms James (if the box was knowingly not ticked), that she had intended it to be a second home at the time that the mortgage was taken out, and changed it later.

    Secondly, I don't know whether this is about interest rates, becaus interest rates can actually be lower on rental property mortgages so long as they get first lein on rental payments. On the other hand rental mortgages often contain a lot more stringent conditions: lower loan-to-value; requirements to inform the bank if a property is unrented for more than a certain number of months; a requirement for rental income to exceed mortgage payments by a certain amount. It's possible that Ms James achieved no interest rate benefit, but did have many fewer disclosure requirements to the bank.
    She said it was to be her primary home, but was clearly living elsewhere at the time.
    The loan application says it was to be a secondary residence, but for her own use. However, there apparently exists a separate "Power of Attorney Document" which lists it as her primary residence (which would definitely be a lie.) This does not, however, form part of the mortgage application process.

    It is worth noting through all of this that the mortgage itself is absolutely tiny: just $109,000 in total.
    And that a family member lived in the house at what (from her tax filings, at least) appears to be a minimal rent, and that James herself lived there from time to time.

    As a mortgage fraud case, it's pretty laughable.
    As a piece of political revenge, misusing the power of the DoJ, it's anything but amusing.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,667
    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
  • eekeek Posts: 31,568
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Um Jeremy comes from Doncaster - he has sod all to do with Darlington.

    Now I know both towns are on the ECML but that's one of the few things in common..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,922
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Bit like the late Clement Freud, then.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    edited October 21
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Um Jeremy comes from Doncaster - he has sod all to do with Darlington.

    Now I know both towns are on the ECML but that's one of the few things in common..
    Whoops I got that wrong!

    He wants to be MP for Doncaster, his home town, not Darlington.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,376
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    Best case, he'd probably argue that they get to keep the bits they've seized, because it's "in their constitution".

    Worst case, he'd give them military assistance.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,163
    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Would that failure to pay, if persisted in, lead to a prison sentence eventually?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051

    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Bit like the late Clement Freud, then.
    A sexual predator who pisses in peoples' soup?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,163
    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    Best case, he'd probably argue that they get to keep the bits they've seized, because it's "in their constitution".

    Worst case, he'd give them military assistance.
    He'd change his mind regularly, offer support in return for the PM visiting him and then withdraw the offer for the cameras.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The Millei story is a terribly sad one.

    He became President of Argentina with - I believe - genuinely good intentions, and a plan to reverse much of the endemic mismanagement. Unlike his predecessors, he wanted good relations with the UK, and had no interest in the Malvinas.

    Unfortunately the world economy stuttered, Argentina caught a cold, and he found himself rapidly heading down a rabbit hole.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21
    rcs1000 said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The Millei story is a terribly sad one.

    He became President of Argentina with - I believe - genuinely good intentions, and a plan to reverse much of the endemic mismanagement. Unlike his predecessors, he wanted good relations with the UK, and had no interest in the Malvinas.

    Unfortunately the world economy stuttered, Argentina caught a cold, and he found himself rapidly heading down a rabbit hole.

    There is a good video explaining the underlying issue,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sNPzQ8aK7s

    He is another person who you have to realise his crazy personna is just PR (unlike Trump). He actually have a serious academic background and when he has done long form interviews about econmics he demonstrates he is no Rachel from accounts.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,657
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    I think an Argentine invasion is currently pretty much impossible, as much because of the poor state of their armed forces as due to the British defences.

    In 2024, for example, their Navy only managed 139 days at sea.

    Though Wikipedia says that they are buying F-16s from Denmark (but I thought they were going to Ukraine).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,922
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Bit like the late Clement Freud, then.
    A sexual predator who pisses in peoples' soup?
    I didn't know about the second bit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    AnneJGP said:

    Sandpit said:

    AnneJGP said:

    I wouldn't expect him to cope very well with the style of work an MP is expected to do.

    He’d be the opposite of most MPs.

    He’d be there in Darlington every other Thursday for a whole day of surgery, and would hire enough constituency staff out of his own pocket to annoy the hell out of the government of the day with all of their problems.

    He’d turn up in London for key votes, probably in a tractor or a Lamborghini, and advocate for motorists by failing to pay congestion charges and ULEZ charges.
    Would that failure to pay, if persisted in, lead to a prison sentence eventually?
    No, most of the motoring fines are civil offences against local council regulations. I’m sure he could have fun with some expensive lawyers exploring all sorts of loopholes in the civil court, which would annoy the hell out of the mayor.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051
    Sorry: I made a mistake in my Latetia James analysis. It was not a bank employee who filled in the form for Ms James, but an employee of her mortgage broker, OMV Financial.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,455
    edited October 21
    F1 fans stuck for Christmas ideas...

    TRiEntertainment predicts Susie Wolff's will be the top autobiography this yule.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xA3kQDpHQ&t=2470s
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267
    edited October 21

    Is he intending to stand for a party or as an independent?

    A Tory I would have thought. Good luck with that.

    The sad thing is our licence fee facilitated this f*****.
    Not a fan? He is a brilliant broadcaster and generous - he tends to make other people into stars (see Hammond and May, and now Caleb). Don't buy into the extreme version on TV - as Francis says that's a persona.
    He did castigate his (old) Top Gear viewers for voting communist in May 1997.

    I knew a couple whose daughter was in his circle circa mid 1990s and they said he was as awful off screen as on screen.

    He is genuinely good on "Millionaire". I can't bear the Grand Tour stuff and I have never watched Clarkson's Farm.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    rcs1000 said:

    Sorry: I made a mistake in my Latetia James analysis. It was not a bank employee who filled in the form for Ms James, but an employee of her mortgage broker, OMV Financial.

    Ooh. So was this the sort of broker Ms James paid directly for their services, or one who was on commission from the bank? That could make the case even more interesting.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,718
    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The Argentine military is a semi-collapsed joke.

    No funding and not been able to buy anything abroad for a long, long time.

    They are trying to buy some old F16 at the moment, IIRC.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    edited October 21

    F1 fans stuck for Christmas ideas...

    TRiEntertainment predicts Susie Wolff's will be the top autobiography this yule.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xA3kQDpHQ&t=2470s

    She’s a really interesting character. Born Susie Stoddart, and probably the most famous British woman racecar driver in her younger days. A definite buy of the book.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615
    rcs1000 said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The Millei story is a terribly sad one.

    He became President of Argentina with - I believe - genuinely good intentions, and a plan to reverse much of the endemic mismanagement. Unlike his predecessors, he wanted good relations with the UK, and had no interest in the Malvinas.

    Unfortunately the world economy stuttered, Argentina caught a cold, and he found himself rapidly heading down a rabbit hole.

    And even with that, he's probably still the most honest and intelligent Argentine leader of the last 100 years.

    Which says a lot and not in a good way about the rest.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 62,051
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sorry: I made a mistake in my Latetia James analysis. It was not a bank employee who filled in the form for Ms James, but an employee of her mortgage broker, OMV Financial.

    Ooh. So was this the sort of broker Ms James paid directly for their services, or one who was on commission from the bank? That could make the case even more interesting.
    Usually brokers are paid by banks for loan origination so this also raises the possibility here that it was the broker that was trying to increase the possibility of loan approval (and therefore commission). They may have had an informal policy of not asking questions which might lead to loans being denied.

    I don't know whether she's guilty or not

    But given the loan was only $109k and any interest rate differential will be no more than -what- 1% per year, abssolute maximum, and given that Ms James didn't fill in the form herself, I simply can't see how it gets past reasonable doubt.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21

    F1 fans stuck for Christmas ideas...

    TRiEntertainment predicts Susie Wolff's will be the top autobiography this yule.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xA3kQDpHQ&t=2470s

    I presume that means the industry is going to push the hell out of it. Nothing against her, interesting story, but I doubt most of the public have any idea about who she is. You would presume there would be some mainstream celebs (perhaps z-lister off reality tv) that would shift more copies.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21
    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,455

    F1 fans stuck for Christmas ideas...

    TRiEntertainment predicts Susie Wolff's will be the top autobiography this yule.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4xA3kQDpHQ&t=2470s

    I presume that means the industry is going to push the hell out of it. Nothing against her, interesting story, but I doubt most of the public have any idea about who she is. You would presume there would be some mainstream celebs (perhaps z-lister off reality tv) that would shift more copies.
    Richard Osman says motor racing books always sell well, and that mainstream autobiographies are not as popular as they used to be. It's in the video.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615

    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.

    Porn always sells well.

    I'm not sure child porn will find a publisher in this country.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,700
    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673

    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.

    The rumours of an historic ‘interaction’ between characters in those two books, would be quite the story if published.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615
    edited October 21
    Sandpit said:

    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.

    The rumours of an historic ‘interaction’ between characters in those two books, would be quite the story if published.
    Must be quite historic given Susie Wolff is older than I am.

    Or did you mean Harry?
  • boulay said:

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    Argentina doesn't really have the forces to mount an invasion now, or for the foreseeable future. Their navy is a pale shadow of the 1980s one, and their air force basically doesn't have any measurable offensive capability - their primary assets are upgraded versions of the A-4s that they used in 1982.

    There's a small chance something crazy would work, like getting every available civilian ship, packing them with troops, and hoping the RAF run out of missiles before sinking them all. That might get them on the island, albeit with Putin-level casualty rates, but a few weeks later an RN carrier and some troopships would turn up and kick them out.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,673
    edited October 21
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.

    The rumours of an historic ‘interaction’ between characters in those two books, would be quite the story if published.
    Must be quite historic given Susie Wolff is older than I am.

    Or did you mean Harry?
    An unexpectedly common character in books written by Harry and Andrew.

    Nothing to do with Susie Wolff.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,455
    PB subject crossover with the thread header. As well as teasing standing for parliament, Jeremy Clarkson has a new book out.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,335

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @yarotrof

    With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

    https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

    So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

    I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

    If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.
    It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/
    There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.
    How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

    They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

    When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.
    Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

    Highlights

    - Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
    - The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
    - The continued production of the Stirling
    - the Rose turret saga
    - Etc
    We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

    It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

    ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.
    I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

    Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

    I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?
    Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

    D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

    You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.
    But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.
    Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.
    That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

    What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.
    Hm, arguably not so much revisionism as considering the alternatives: by implication, any thesis that, for instance, Harris - or his superiors - did a good job has to consider whether there were obvious alternatives to the particular expenditure of productive capacity, materials, and - just as important - trained crews.

    For instance, despite the much improved support of the Army in the Desert and in NWE, the treatment of tac air leaves a question whether the RAF and USAAF were more interested in fighting their private wars. it's curious and interesting that (whatever might have been designed by anyone*) neither the RAF nor the USAF deployed a purpose-built ground attack machine to compare with the Il-2 Sturmovik and Hs129 in between the RFC/RAF Salamander of 1918 and the A-10 of more recent years (which was basically a modernised Sturmovik). Typhoons and P-47s were primarily fighter (anti-air) machines, adopted expediently and more or less adapted for ground attack. I'm not entirely convinced myself that it is an issue, partly because the fighters were safer in mixed combat if jumped by enemy fighters, like it was safer to do artillery spotting from either an Auster or a Spit than a Lysander.

    And similarly, the F16 probably makes more sense for ground attack these days, and the A10 is obsolete (arguably always was).
    The A-10

    The awesome gun that required you to fly through the killing zone of a ZSU-23 to actually use it.

    Ed Rasimus (who experienced all the fun of close support in Vietnam) told how, when fly the first F16, they used the bombing computer to loft bombs so acurateky that they could hit individual tank targets in exercises. While not coming within miles of the target. This is before PGMs.

    The umpires in such exercises ruled that actual hits with the bombs on the tank targets were “invalid” since they didn’t fly over the target.
    Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, such fun on my first ever PC.

    "What are you doing? You just killed a friendly!" :lol:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 56,335

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The British military is a semi-collapsed joke.
    FTFY :innocent:
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,300
    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,395
    edited October 21
    There are "no plans" for US President Donald Trump to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin "in the immediate future", a White House official has stated.

    Last Thursday Trump said he and the Russian president would hold talks in Budapest within two weeks to discuss the war in Ukraine.

    A preparatory meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov was due to be held this week - but the White House said the two had had a "productive" call and that a meeting was no longer "necessary".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

    Putin clearly ghosting him on Signal. No sign that Trump will be able to end a 28th war this year.
  • FossFoss Posts: 1,883
    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    Would Clarkson - being a remainer - be ideologically pure enough to be a Reform candidate?
  • Surely the problem with Clarkson (J) standing for Parliament in Doncaster (N) is that he is wildly anti-Brexit. "The biggest mistake of a lifetime", quoth he. So Reform and the Tories are out, he would be fighting a Labour incumbent, and he hates the Greens. So, Lib Dem it is then.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,700
    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    It's not a great time for normal people who have lives to enter politics. Real success is not really in sight, so it's a career for chancers and so on. Commentary, punditry and journalism is one thing; but in current politics if you get anywhere worth getting, there is a very very high chance you and your reputation are going to go down with the ship.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,576

    There are "no plans" for US President Donald Trump to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin "in the immediate future", a White House official has stated.

    Last Thursday Trump said he and the Russian president would hold talks in Budapest within two weeks to discuss the war in Ukraine.

    A preparatory meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov was due to be held this week - but the White House said the two had had a "productive" call and that a meeting was no longer "necessary".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

    Putin clearly ghosting him on Signal. No sign that Trump will be able to end a 28th war this year.

    No need. He won a peace prize this morning

    https://x.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1980671813412659690
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,163
    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    I can't see an ego like Mr Farage's welcoming a larger than life figure like Mr Clarkson.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,163
    Foss said:

    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    Would Clarkson - being a remainer - be ideologically pure enough to be a Reform candidate?
    Depends on Mr Clarkson's fundamental motivation. Leave/Remain isn't a thing any longer and Rejoin hasn't yet got off the ground, so Reform might be in line with his thinking.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 5,421
    edited October 21
    Sandpit said:

    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.

    Darlington? Darlington?

    Ed is Doncaster North, not that I have seen him once in the constituency in all the years he has been the MP.

    I don't think Clarkson will win unless everyone else stands down, which they won't.

    I was surprised there was no Reform candidate in the GE. I think the block Labour vote from the ex-mining villages is slowly disappearing and is becoming Reform adjacent - this was apparent in the council elections.

    [Clarkson lived in a big grade II listed house in Tickhill as a child. This is not exactly a deprived area, and is in a different constituency]
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 6,300
    algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    It's not a great time for normal people who have lives to enter politics. Real success is not really in sight, so it's a career for chancers and so on. Commentary, punditry and journalism is one thing; but in current politics if you get anywhere worth getting, there is a very very high chance you and your reputation are going to go down with the ship.

    On the contrary. It’s exactly the time for people who have lived real lives and careers to enter politics and potentially make a massive difference on chosen areas of policy.

    The major parties are leaving a vacuum and on current polling, Reform looking like getting a strong majority but without a long established party of careerists ready to climb the greasy pole.

    Reform are seeking out what they see as top tier talent for background policy advisory roles but more if the person wants it. Clarkson well might be like everyone else that isn’t an #FBPE weirdo and have come to terms with the existential grief of leaving a continental customs union and single market.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,657

    There are "no plans" for US President Donald Trump to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin "in the immediate future", a White House official has stated.

    Last Thursday Trump said he and the Russian president would hold talks in Budapest within two weeks to discuss the war in Ukraine.

    A preparatory meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov was due to be held this week - but the White House said the two had had a "productive" call and that a meeting was no longer "necessary".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

    Putin clearly ghosting him on Signal. No sign that Trump will be able to end a 28th war this year.

    All a giant piss-take from the look of things.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 46,002

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @yarotrof

    With Russia unwilling to drop its demands for a Ukrainian surrender of Donbas as a precondition to a ceasefire, it starts looking doubtful that the Budapest summit between Putin and Trump will happen anytime soon, if at all. The Lavrov-Rubio preparatory meeting, which Trump said was scheduled for this week, hasn’t been agreed to by Russia and, as per Lavrov deputy Ryabkov, “requires additional preparation.”

    https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1980529712137953587

    So Putin has managed to forestall the supply of Tomahawks by promising Trump a peace summit which now isn't going to happen?

    I can't decide between Trump being an idiot who is easily played by Putin, or actively malign who is cooperating with Putin to deflect pressure on him to act from the Republicans who would support Ukraine. Maybe it's a mix?

    If Europe as a whole gets its act together the war can be won. And that will be easier done now than when Le Pen is running France and Farage is running Britain. Get on with it.
    It doesn’t have to be big ticket items - I saw this cool thing in the Sun this morning which demonstrated that a bit of ingenuity can be as good as a lot of expensive kit, basically the British Space force engineers cobbled together launchers made up of chassis from APCs and missile rails from obsolete jets like the Jaguar and Tornado and have supplied the relevant missiles and created a successful mobile missile platform in a few months.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37071931/british-missile-launchers-downing-russian-rockets-drones/
    There’s been lots of that going on. To the fury of big ticket contractors who see such expedients as stopping them getting proper programs at a proper price. Plus creating history that such things can be cheap.
    How would today’s contractors have coped in WWII?

    They still haven’t clicked that wartime procurement looks very different from peacetime procurement.

    When there’s peace, you maintain the industrial capability and push the future technology, but when there’s a war on you just want shedloads of last year’s weapons and want them yesterday.
    Air Marshall Harris suggested that he could take 12 months off the war, if he was allowed to shoot a few hundred civil servants and senior management in the aircraft industry.

    Highlights

    - Harris personally authorised, against the wish of officials, an improved gun mounting for the Hampden. Told the manufacturers of the mountings he would be personally be liable, financially.
    - The System telling him that increasing the size of the Lancaster escape hatch was impossible. Even for next years production.
    - The continued production of the Stirling
    - the Rose turret saga
    - Etc
    We could probably have knocked a year off the war by sacking Harris. The area bombing campaign, whatever you think of its morality, was ludicrously ineffective until better navigation, first by onboard radar and then by properly using onboard radar, meant bombs could be dropped within 50 yards of the target rather than within five miles.

    It might also have freed Lancasters (for their range, not capacity) for the Battle of the Atlantic.

    ETA it would also have saved British lives. Directly, aircrew had a 50 per cent death rate per tour. Indirectly, bombing German arms factories rather than French farmers' fields would have starved Nazis of weapons to shoot back.
    I totally and utterly disagree. One of the reasons we were able to invade in 1944 was due to the efforts of bomber command. Yes they were shit to start with. But they got better with experience and innovation. Harris was resistant to switching to the transportation plan but when directly ordered he complied. As a result, with the 8th Air Force bombing by day and bomber command by night the Germans were massively impeded in what they could do. Look at how long it took Das Reich to reach the battle.

    Now you can argue about priorities, but actually to learn to bomb meant you had to bomb. And yes the casualties were horrific, but arguably those lost in the air were compensated by those saved on the ground.

    I think you will struggle to show how you shave a year off the war. When was your D-Day?
    Das Reich was slowed by the French Resistance, and was in the wrong place to start with thanks to Allied disinformation.

    D-day could probably have been a year earlier but that had more to do with Churchill's inability to read a map.

    You say bombing improved with innovation. That is my point too. Specifically onboard radar. Until then, Coastal Command could have made better use of the planes.
    But the innovation came from experience in the bombing raids. D-Day a year earlier was not really possible - the Americans hadn't built up enough, there weren't enough landing craft etc. Yes Das Reich was impeded by the resistance, but also anything moving in France was hit by the RAF/US 8th Air Force. And the ability to do that came with experience.
    Heavy bombers weren't so great at tactical stuff, though. Just ask General Lesley J. McNair.
    That's true. I am not a fan of revisionism in how we should have fought the war. Harris had a vision of defeating Germany without the need to land a single soldier on German soil. Arguably against a 'normal' opponent that would have worked. The destruction of Germanies cities by late '44 was incredible.

    What would have been achieved by not bombing Germany? Less pressure on the Reich so freeing up weapons for elsewhere? Less effort on the Luftwaffe combating bombing raids? More production of war material in Germany? I don't really understand why people think Harris and Spaatz were so wrong in what they did.
    Hm, arguably not so much revisionism as considering the alternatives: by implication, any thesis that, for instance, Harris - or his superiors - did a good job has to consider whether there were obvious alternatives to the particular expenditure of productive capacity, materials, and - just as important - trained crews.

    For instance, despite the much improved support of the Army in the Desert and in NWE, the treatment of tac air leaves a question whether the RAF and USAAF were more interested in fighting their private wars. it's curious and interesting that (whatever might have been designed by anyone*) neither the RAF nor the USAF deployed a purpose-built ground attack machine to compare with the Il-2 Sturmovik and Hs129 in between the RFC/RAF Salamander of 1918 and the A-10 of more recent years (which was basically a modernised Sturmovik). Typhoons and P-47s were primarily fighter (anti-air) machines, adopted expediently and more or less adapted for ground attack. I'm not entirely convinced myself that it is an issue, partly because the fighters were safer in mixed combat if jumped by enemy fighters, like it was safer to do artillery spotting from either an Auster or a Spit than a Lysander.

    And similarly, the F16 probably makes more sense for ground attack these days, and the A10 is obsolete (arguably always was).
    The A-10

    The awesome gun that required you to fly through the killing zone of a ZSU-23 to actually use it.

    Ed Rasimus (who experienced all the fun of close support in Vietnam) told how, when fly the first F16, they used the bombing computer to loft bombs so acurateky that they could hit individual tank targets in exercises. While not coming within miles of the target. This is before PGMs.

    The umpires in such exercises ruled that actual hits with the bombs on the tank targets were “invalid” since they didn’t fly over the target.
    Ah, A-10 Tank-killer, such fun on my first ever PC.

    "What are you doing? You just killed a friendly!" :lol:
    I'm afraid that actually adds to the realism, given what has happened on occasion in the meatspace version.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615

    There are "no plans" for US President Donald Trump to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin "in the immediate future", a White House official has stated.

    Last Thursday Trump said he and the Russian president would hold talks in Budapest within two weeks to discuss the war in Ukraine.

    A preparatory meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov was due to be held this week - but the White House said the two had had a "productive" call and that a meeting was no longer "necessary".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

    Putin clearly ghosting him on Signal. No sign that Trump will be able to end a 28th war this year.

    TACO.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,587
    Lam's comments are vague. Is she talking about sending back people legally here on temporary visas, or who have indefinite leave to remain, or who have acquired citizenship?

    She talks about "cultural coherence". She should be pressed on what or who she means. I presume it's a dog-whistle for Muslims.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,615

    Lam's comments are vague. Is she talking about sending back people legally here on temporary visas, or who have indefinite leave to remain, or who have acquired citizenship?

    She talks about "cultural coherence". She should be pressed on what or who she means. I presume it's a dog-whistle for Muslims.

    She just wants Badenoch to go to Nigeria to create a vacancy.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 16,587
    edited October 21
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of the prosecution of Latetia James, she is charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

    The question is a simple one: did she claim it was a second home (when it wasn't) when it was in fact going to be rented out?

    The whole case -apparently- relates to a single check box that was left unchecked on one page of the mortgage application form.

    Now, the interesting question (or issue) for the prosecution is that it appears that Ms James did not fill out the application. She sat in the bank office, while being asked questions, and a bank employee filled the form in.

    This makes it quite a difficult case for the prosecution, because how do they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bank employee actually asked the question, and correctly acted?

    If she's put on the stand and says "I don't remember asking this specific question", or "it's perfectly possible that I made a mistake", or -indeed- the defence introduces evidence that a significant percentage of applications have minor errors like this caused by bank errors, then it will extremely difficult to get it beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's not as clear cut as the Comey case (where he is clearly but technically innocent), but at the same time, I can't help feel that it will be extremely difficult to get 12 members of a Jury* to agree to her having a mens rea over a box she did not fill in herself.

    * And you need all 12 to agree in the US

    An interesting perspective, if it’s correct that she didn’t fill out the form herself but just signed it at the end of an ‘interview’ with the bank employee. Presumably the bank employee would have been expected to go through the whole form again, line by line, before it was actually signed?

    I really wouldn’t want to be the bank’s lawyers in subsequent Federal legal actions, that would allege that either their staff were at best routinely negligent, or at worst active accomplices in mortgage fraud. With a large dataset of actual mortgages to go on, and the history of these loans being repackaged and sold on as we saw in 2008.
    I suspect that Ms James would have been handed a printout, and would be expected to look through it before signing.

    The issue is that if she did not, then while there is certainly a civil case against her, then proving mens rea is going to be exceptionally hard.
    So the case depends on whether she was expected to read the printout on her own, or whether the ‘advisor’ on commission walked her through it line by line.

    If I were that ‘advisor’, I think I’d throw her under the bus to save my own ass and that of my employer, political considerations aside.
    The thing is, it probably still doesn't lead to a guilty verdict, if the defence can bring forward half a dozen other witnesses who said that [x] didn't read through the whole application line-by-line.

    It's a tough case: it's entirely possible that Ms James did lie on the form to get favorable mortgage terms. But I'm struggling to see how it gets past reasonable doubt.
    The prosecution claims she rented the house out. There's evidence she didn't rent it out. That potentially kills the case. You don't have to get into who ticked the box on the form.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,661
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Maybe Prince Andrew will do an autobiography next year....as he is going to need the cash and Spare sold a shit tonne.

    The rumours of an historic ‘interaction’ between characters in those two books, would be quite the story if published.
    Must be quite historic given Susie Wolff is older than I am.

    Or did you mean Harry?
    An unexpectedly common character in books written by Harry and Andrew.

    Nothing to do with Susie Wolff.
    Harry and Fergie?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,376
    ydoethur said:

    Lam's comments are vague. Is she talking about sending back people legally here on temporary visas, or who have indefinite leave to remain, or who have acquired citizenship?

    She talks about "cultural coherence". She should be pressed on what or who she means. I presume it's a dog-whistle for Muslims.

    She just wants Badenoch to go to Nigeria to create a vacancy.
    It would be a fine thing if she did eventually become leader. Just think of all the puns.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,799

    There are "no plans" for US President Donald Trump to meet Russia's Vladimir Putin "in the immediate future", a White House official has stated.

    Last Thursday Trump said he and the Russian president would hold talks in Budapest within two weeks to discuss the war in Ukraine.

    A preparatory meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov was due to be held this week - but the White House said the two had had a "productive" call and that a meeting was no longer "necessary".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gjp73gp41o

    Putin clearly ghosting him on Signal. No sign that Trump will be able to end a 28th war this year.

    Surely someone in the WH would have pointed out a) the suggestion of going to Hungary was a non-starter for Putin in the same way as landing in Europe was a non-starter for Netanyahu. b) the Russian media has continued to repeat the line that it's all in for Russia and the SMO due to 'reasons'.

    Putin has not moved an inch in all the time this has being going on and why Trump thinks it's different indicates he's incapable of understanding the dynamics of the Russian position wrt Ukraine and their aspirations for further SMO's in the Baltics.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,672
    ydoethur said:

    Lam's comments are vague. Is she talking about sending back people legally here on temporary visas, or who have indefinite leave to remain, or who have acquired citizenship?

    She talks about "cultural coherence". She should be pressed on what or who she means. I presume it's a dog-whistle for Muslims.

    She just wants Badenoch to go to Nigeria to create a vacancy.
    Badenoch is a Brith citizen via birth rather than ILR, being born in Wimbledon a year or so before the nationality act of 1981.

    I think ILR should be revoked only under the most severe conditions such as a criminal conviction with a custodial sentence.

    Expelling migrants with ILR who aren't "culturally coherent" does sound the very definition of ethnic cleansing.

    I am encouraging my friends with ILR to get citizenship before the next GE, though it may well be that even a UK passport isnt enough.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,376

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    On the subject of the prosecution of Latetia James, she is charged with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

    The question is a simple one: did she claim it was a second home (when it wasn't) when it was in fact going to be rented out?

    The whole case -apparently- relates to a single check box that was left unchecked on one page of the mortgage application form.

    Now, the interesting question (or issue) for the prosecution is that it appears that Ms James did not fill out the application. She sat in the bank office, while being asked questions, and a bank employee filled the form in.

    This makes it quite a difficult case for the prosecution, because how do they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bank employee actually asked the question, and correctly acted?

    If she's put on the stand and says "I don't remember asking this specific question", or "it's perfectly possible that I made a mistake", or -indeed- the defence introduces evidence that a significant percentage of applications have minor errors like this caused by bank errors, then it will extremely difficult to get it beyond reasonable doubt.

    It's not as clear cut as the Comey case (where he is clearly but technically innocent), but at the same time, I can't help feel that it will be extremely difficult to get 12 members of a Jury* to agree to her having a mens rea over a box she did not fill in herself.

    * And you need all 12 to agree in the US

    An interesting perspective, if it’s correct that she didn’t fill out the form herself but just signed it at the end of an ‘interview’ with the bank employee. Presumably the bank employee would have been expected to go through the whole form again, line by line, before it was actually signed?

    I really wouldn’t want to be the bank’s lawyers in subsequent Federal legal actions, that would allege that either their staff were at best routinely negligent, or at worst active accomplices in mortgage fraud. With a large dataset of actual mortgages to go on, and the history of these loans being repackaged and sold on as we saw in 2008.
    I suspect that Ms James would have been handed a printout, and would be expected to look through it before signing.

    The issue is that if she did not, then while there is certainly a civil case against her, then proving mens rea is going to be exceptionally hard.
    So the case depends on whether she was expected to read the printout on her own, or whether the ‘advisor’ on commission walked her through it line by line.

    If I were that ‘advisor’, I think I’d throw her under the bus to save my own ass and that of my employer, political considerations aside.
    The thing is, it probably still doesn't lead to a guilty verdict, if the defence can bring forward half a dozen other witnesses who said that [x] didn't read through the whole application line-by-line.

    It's a tough case: it's entirely possible that Ms James did lie on the form to get favorable mortgage terms. But I'm struggling to see how it gets past reasonable doubt.
    The prosecution claims she rented the house out. There's evidence she didn't rent it out. That potentially kills the case. You don't have to get into who ticked the box on the form.
    I hope it doesn't get kicked out immediately.
    I'm looking forward to her defence subpoena-ing Trump, who has made it clear he regards himself as chief law officer, and has every right to instruct prosecutions to be brought.

    I think we need to hear him deposed in the defence case for selective prosecution.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,376
    Russian reports are generally full of shit, so it will be interesting to see what this actually is.

    ...A large number of Hellfire drones are flying, and at least 10 British Storm Shadow missiles have been launched. Ukraine is striking with practically everything it has, according to Russian military correspondents.

    There is an alert in 15 regions of the Russian Federation, including Moscow and Crimea. There have already been arrivals, according to monitors...

    https://x.com/Heroiam_Slava/status/1980645209579966749
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,672
    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    It's not a great time for normal people who have lives to enter politics. Real success is not really in sight, so it's a career for chancers and so on. Commentary, punditry and journalism is one thing; but in current politics if you get anywhere worth getting, there is a very very high chance you and your reputation are going to go down with the ship.

    On the contrary. It’s exactly the time for people who have lived real lives and careers to enter politics and potentially make a massive difference on chosen areas of policy.

    The major parties are leaving a vacuum and on current polling, Reform looking like getting a strong majority but without a long established party of careerists ready to climb the greasy pole.

    Reform are seeking out what they see as top tier talent for background policy advisory roles but more if the person wants it. Clarkson well might be like everyone else that isn’t an #FBPE weirdo and have come to terms with the existential grief of leaving a continental customs union and single market.
    This was Clarkson on Brexit in Feb this year:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-pub-farm-b2694884.html

    Clarkson said that, generally, he can spend time with people who have differing views to his own – but “the one exception” is “people who voted for Brexit”. He said: “It’s not so bad if they put their hands up and admit they made a mistake. But if I encounter someone who still thinks it was all a brilliant idea, I get so cross my hair catches fire and my teeth start to itch.”

    I can see that being a problem for Nigel.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,237

    .....'Anti semitic smears' says Starmer Badenoch and Davey.....'Jew haters!' says Dan Hodges...

    A sober kook (and quite funny............)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM8Fwfzc508
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,986
    rcs1000 said:

    boulay said:

    Scott_xP said:

    CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?

    BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue.

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m3pmqewiuc2q

    I do wonder what would happen if Argentina suddenly got bold/desperate and tried to invade the Falklands.

    It might be that they get done over by the defence set-up there (I have an acquaintance who was senior in the army and he had been sent down there to analyse and refresh the military’s defence plan and kit about 20 years ago and he was very certain they could bat away any invasion attempt so hope it’s still so) but if they managed to land and the British went to force them out would we have Trump now demanding that we accept it and “stop the fighting”, would he take Argentina’s side as he has financial considerations at stake or would he side with the UK?
    The Millei story is a terribly sad one.

    He became President of Argentina with - I believe - genuinely good intentions, and a plan to reverse much of the endemic mismanagement. Unlike his predecessors, he wanted good relations with the UK, and had no interest in the Malvinas.

    Unfortunately the world economy stuttered, Argentina caught a cold, and he found himself rapidly heading down a rabbit hole.

    I don't really understand these sorts of vague comments about Millei. What do you mean by a rabbit hole? As far as I can see, Millei came in to try to return the Argentinian economy to growth and get the country on a sound financial footing. He had some success - growing faster than China is a remarkable feat. He is now experiencing political headwinds at home, and currency speculators betting against the Argentinian currency abroad, and he's sought support from Trump to help get through it.

    What rabbit hole? And more importantly, what would the sage commentors stroking their beards have done differently? Continued with corrupt Peronist Government and hyperinflation?

    Not trying to pick on RCS, I see a lot of similar comments.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,267

    Lam's comments are vague. Is she talking about sending back people legally here on temporary visas, or who have indefinite leave to remain, or who have acquired citizenship?

    She talks about "cultural coherence". She should be pressed on what or who she means. I presume it's a dog-whistle for Muslims.

    I believe she is very clear in what she meant. I suspect you are right about the anti-Islam dog whistle.

    Cheap and nasty politics.
  • TazTaz Posts: 21,664

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Esther Rantzen too. Crashed and burned
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,576
    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,096

    Sandpit said:

    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.

    Darlington? Darlington?

    Ed is Doncaster North, not that I have seen him once in the constituency in all the years he has been the MP.

    I don't think Clarkson will win unless everyone else stands down, which they won't.

    I was surprised there was no Reform candidate in the GE. I think the block Labour vote from the ex-mining villages is slowly disappearing and is becoming Reform adjacent - this was apparent in the council elections.

    [Clarkson lived in a big grade II listed house in Tickhill as a child. This is not exactly a deprived area, and is in a different constituency]
    It is a bit odd that the Milibands have always been very smart London. Ralph 'Martyr to the cause' always kept himself in nice digs and his sons too. Quite what they offer to Doncaster or South Shields that was unavailable locally escapes me. Still it's nice that Ed has a regional accent... just not sure that there are any regions willing to adopt it.

    (I really am starting to dislike EdM.)
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,576
    Is TSE the primary target of this budget?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,659
    Taz said:

    TV "personalities" trying to win a seat on the back of an unpopular local candidate rarely do well. Martin Bell seems to be the exception rather the rule. The like of Al Murray, all the dickheads that have gone for London Mayor, etc, don't trouble the scorers. The Monster Raving Loony Party often still do better than them.

    Esther Rantzen too. Crashed and burned
    My wife was watching a C5 program about 1970s TV the other day. Its probably on quite often. What was interesting about it, apparently, is that almost every program was something she had seen (the consequence of there being only 3 channels). The other thing I caught was that Esther Rantzen's That's Life had between 15 and 18m viewers a week. Now that's power. Real power.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,799
    Omnium said:

    Sandpit said:

    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.

    Darlington? Darlington?

    Ed is Doncaster North, not that I have seen him once in the constituency in all the years he has been the MP.

    I don't think Clarkson will win unless everyone else stands down, which they won't.

    I was surprised there was no Reform candidate in the GE. I think the block Labour vote from the ex-mining villages is slowly disappearing and is becoming Reform adjacent - this was apparent in the council elections.

    [Clarkson lived in a big grade II listed house in Tickhill as a child. This is not exactly a deprived area, and is in a different constituency]
    It is a bit odd that the Milibands have always been very smart London. Ralph 'Martyr to the cause' always kept himself in nice digs and his sons too. Quite what they offer to Doncaster or South Shields that was unavailable locally escapes me. Still it's nice that Ed has a regional accent... just not sure that there are any regions willing to adopt it.

    (I really am starting to dislike EdM.)
    Results in Doncaster North in the last 5 elections - Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,986
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    moonshine said:

    algarkirk said:

    I don't think it can happen. Clarkson isn't dim. He will think about what's involved in being an MP and decline.

    The one thinkable route is as a celeb addition to the Reform circus, with a promise that he will be a minister with a Reform manifesto for transport crafted around Clarkson populism. But I think this is a QTWTAIN.

    He wouldnt want the transport job, he would want the Defra job. And I suspect he’d do it very well. Whether Farage wants him pissing inside his tent is quite another question. And I’m pretty unsure whether Clarkson would want to be inside that tent rather than just being the axeman for Miliband. But stranger things have happened.
    It's not a great time for normal people who have lives to enter politics. Real success is not really in sight, so it's a career for chancers and so on. Commentary, punditry and journalism is one thing; but in current politics if you get anywhere worth getting, there is a very very high chance you and your reputation are going to go down with the ship.

    On the contrary. It’s exactly the time for people who have lived real lives and careers to enter politics and potentially make a massive difference on chosen areas of policy.

    The major parties are leaving a vacuum and on current polling, Reform looking like getting a strong majority but without a long established party of careerists ready to climb the greasy pole.

    Reform are seeking out what they see as top tier talent for background policy advisory roles but more if the person wants it. Clarkson well might be like everyone else that isn’t an #FBPE weirdo and have come to terms with the existential grief of leaving a continental customs union and single market.
    This was Clarkson on Brexit in Feb this year:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jeremy-clarkson-brexit-pub-farm-b2694884.html

    Clarkson said that, generally, he can spend time with people who have differing views to his own – but “the one exception” is “people who voted for Brexit”. He said: “It’s not so bad if they put their hands up and admit they made a mistake. But if I encounter someone who still thinks it was all a brilliant idea, I get so cross my hair catches fire and my teeth start to itch.”

    I can see that being a problem for Nigel.
    And when we were in the EU, he supported giving the EU more power, ostensibly to take it away from 'the idiot Blair' - obviously blithely assuming that the EU didn't do idiots, despite the presence of assorted Kinnocks. It's the sort of faux plucky Brit attitude that was very common in Tory circles in the 2000s. Cameron and Osborne picking public spats followed by private writing of cheques. Its main media champion is The Times and assorted Murdoch publications - still doing wet left wingery disguised as Toryism to this day. Though to a far smaller audience.

    Needless to say, I have very little time for his politics. He would of course be an upgrade on Ed Milliband, but so would a jam jar full of smallpox.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,396
    Miliband's got a local problem to deal with first:

    Three MPs have criticised plans for a 3,500-acre solar farm between Doncaster and Rotherham.

    The project, named Whitestone Solar Farm, would stretch across a number of separate parcels of land and could power 250,000 homes.

    However, local MPs John Healey, Sarah Champion and Jake Richards have all raised concerns about the size and location of the scheme.

    ...


    Healey, Labour MP for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough, told project developer Green Nation in a letter that the scheme did not meet his expectations, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

    "In my view, every project must still meet three tests: it must be proportionate, it must be safe, and it must be fair - Whitestone fails all three," he said.

    He said it was "the wrong scale of scheme in the wrong place".


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5e246pdgzo
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,096
    Battlebus said:

    Omnium said:

    Sandpit said:

    As with Martin Bell, Clarkson’s only chance is if every other major party (including Reform) withdraws and gives him a clean run.

    However, if Clarkson can force Ed Miliband to spend a fair amount of the next three years in Darlington rather than in Westminster, then it probably helps the country in the long run.

    Darlington? Darlington?

    Ed is Doncaster North, not that I have seen him once in the constituency in all the years he has been the MP.

    I don't think Clarkson will win unless everyone else stands down, which they won't.

    I was surprised there was no Reform candidate in the GE. I think the block Labour vote from the ex-mining villages is slowly disappearing and is becoming Reform adjacent - this was apparent in the council elections.

    [Clarkson lived in a big grade II listed house in Tickhill as a child. This is not exactly a deprived area, and is in a different constituency]
    It is a bit odd that the Milibands have always been very smart London. Ralph 'Martyr to the cause' always kept himself in nice digs and his sons too. Quite what they offer to Doncaster or South Shields that was unavailable locally escapes me. Still it's nice that Ed has a regional accent... just not sure that there are any regions willing to adopt it.

    (I really am starting to dislike EdM.)
    Results in Doncaster North in the last 5 elections - Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour, Labour.
    Yes, of course I know why the Milibands stand where they do, but quite why the local electorate puts up with it I'm less sure of.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,971
    edited October 21
    Interesting article by Chris Mullin in the Guardian

    The Tories set a tax trap and Rachel Reeves walked straight into it. It may be her defining mistake

    By taking Jeremy Hunt’s NI cuts and ruling out other rises, Labour tried to out-Tory the Tories. And made a bad situation worse

    Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have only themselves to blame for the mess they are in over tax. The key moment was not the defenestration of their welfare bill or the uprising over pensioners’ winter fuel payments. The die was cast more than a year earlier.

    In January 2024, the then chancellor Jeremy Hunt implemented a cut in employee national insurance contributions. Four months later he announced a further reduction from 10% to 8% and even hinted that he was considering abolishing employee contributions altogether. It was the mother of all election bribes, costing the exchequer about £10bn a year. It was also entirely cynical, offered in the absolute confidence that the Tories would not be in office long enough to grapple with the consequences. Had they by any chance won the election, he would have had to recoup the tax revenue forgone by either tax increases or by further swingeing cuts to the public sector.


    For Labour, this was an obvious trap. Faced with these utterly irresponsible tax cuts at a time when pressure on the public sector was approaching breaking point, Reeves was challenged by Hunt to say whether, if she became chancellor, she would reinstate them. The sensible reply would have been to say: “We will decide if and when we are elected, and discover how much of a mess you have left us.” She might also have added, “And, by the way, the next election will not be about tax cuts. It will be about the dreadful state of the public sector.”

    Instead, however, Reeves fell headlong into the trap Hunt had set, promising not only that she would not reinstate his cuts, but incredibly going further and promising not to raise any of the main sources of revenue: income tax, VAT or national insurance. From that moment on the party was doomed

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/21/tories-tax-trap-rachel-reeves-defining-mistake?CMP=share_btn_url
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,659
    Scott_xP said:

    @Steven_Swinford
    EXCLUSIVE:

    Rachel Reeves will launch a £2 billion tax raid on lawyers, family doctors and accountants as she seeks to balance the books by targeting the wealthy

    The chancellor is expected to use the budget to impose a new charge on people who use limited liability partnerships as she tries to fill a £30 billion hole in the public finances

    More than 190,000 workers use partnerships, particularly in the legal world, and they offer a significant tax benefit over ordinary employment. They are not subject to employers' national insurance as partners are treated as self-employed

    Reeves is said to consider this unfair and is expected to announce changes to the system in her budget. She has repeatedly said that 'those with the broadest shoulders' should pay their 'fair share of tax', and many of those who use partnerships are high earners

    Details of the planned tax raid on partnerships were obtained by The State of It, the new political podcast from The Times and The Sunday Times

    More than 13,000 partners earn an average of £1.25 million each a year. Solicitors who draw profits from partnerships make an average of £316,000 a year. The family doctors make £118,000 and accountants an average of £246,000

    Reeves is also expected to push ahead with a mansion tax, imposing capital gains on the sale of main residences for the most expensive properties

    As a self employed advocate I paid quite a chunk of NI. Not as much as I do now sort of employed by Crown Office, but not nothing either.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,442
    Means nothing unless compared to how many think Ed Miliband is a bad MP and in his constituency too.

    Personally, I think Clarkson wins as an Independent yet alone Reform.
Sign In or Register to comment.